##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14237]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6343/2026

Smt. Raziya Banu W/o Hakim Mohammed Ji, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Sohankhera, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh

(Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Kamruddin S/o Laduji, R/o Sohankhera, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

2. Anwar Khan S/o Laduji, R/o Sohankhera, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

3. Ladu S/o Sultan Khan, R/o Sohankhera, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepika Soni For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

27/03/2026

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mandfiya, District Chittorgarh in Civil Suit No. 10/2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XIV

Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of the gift deed dated 03.05.2018 was instituted by the respondent(s)/plaintiffs. It is further submitted that, upon completion of pleadings, the learned trial court framed issues. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC seeking framing of an additional issue, contending that defendants in Para 3 of special pleas in their written statement,

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 06:55:06 PM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 04:24:51 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14237] (2 of 3) [CW-6343/2026] specifically pleaded that executant of document in question was alive and he did not raise any objection regarding said document and therefore, plantiffs were not entitled to bring the suit. The

additional issue(s) sought to be framed reads as under :-

“vk;k izfroknhx.k nLrkost fu’iknudrkZ orZeku esa ftfor gksdj mlds }kjk nLrkost ckcr dksbZ ,rjkt izLrqr ugha fd;k gSa rFkk oknhx.k

mDr okn ykus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Rameshwar & Ors. Vs.

Masoom Ali Khan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5112/2020).

4. The respondent(s)/plaintiffs filed a reply to the said application, asserting that issue sought to be framed was covered by issues already framed by the trial Court. The issues framed by the learned trial court were proper and required no interference. It was further contended that the application had been filed solely with the intent to delay the proceedings, and thus deserves

dismissal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the reply

filed by the respondent(s) as well as the impugned order.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is prima facie of the view that the issue sought to be introduced by the petitioner/defendant has already been substantially covered under Issue No.4 framed by the learned trial court. As regards the validity of the impugned order, it is noted that the suit was instituted in the year 2019 and issues were framed in the year 2024. After completion of evidence of the parties, the matter was posted for final arguments on 13.01.2026, and thereafter on consecutive dates, i.e., 17.01.2026,

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 06:55:06 PM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 04:24:51 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14237] (3 of 3) [CW-6343/2026] 19.01.2026, and 27.01.2026. It is further evident that on 27.01.2026, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which came to be dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/-, by the learned trial court observing that the application had been filed at a belated stage. Subsequent to the rejection of the said application, the petitioner filed another application seeking opportunity/time to challenge the said order which was also dismissed. Then, the present application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC came to be filed, which too was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner