[2023:RJ-JD:36583]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12211/2023

Gram Panchayat Thaladka, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh

Through Its Sarpanch Radhey Shayam Son Of Shri Jagdish, Aged

35 Years, Resident Of Thaladka, Tehsil Nohar, District

Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Amar Singh S/o Shri Kumbha Ram, Resident Of Thaladka,

Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

2.

Lal Chand S/o Sanwla Ram, Resident Of Thaladka, Tehsil

Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

3.

Mahaveer S/o Manphool, Resident Of Thaladka, Tehsil

Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

4.

Mahender S/o Ranjit, Resident Of Thaladka, Tehsil Nohar,

District Hanumangarh.

5.

Ram Sawroop S/o Sarwan Kumar, Resident Of Thaladka,

Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Moti Singh

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. R.S. Choudhary with

Mr. S.S. Gour.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

30/10/2023

1.

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“A. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition

may be kindly be allowed.

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be

issued and impugned order dated 14.08.2023 (Annexure-12)

extent to rejection the application of the petitioner under Order

18 Rule 17(a) & Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC passed by Civil Judge,

[2023:RJ-JD:36583]

(2 of 3)

[CW-12211/2023]

Nohar District Hanumangarh in Civil Suit No.143/2016 titled as

Om Prakash Vs. Amar Singh and others, may kindly be quashed

and set aside. The application filed by the petitioner may kindly

be allowed as prayed for and the document may kindly be taken

on record.

C. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this

Hon’ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case may kindly be issued.”

D. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of

the petitioner.”

2.

The limited bone of contention before this Court today is that

whether the petitioner, under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, was entitled

to be recalled as a witness and produce certain documents, which

he claims to be public document on record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted

that the land in dispute is Aam Chowk and the petitioner is

supporting the cause of public at large and not contesting for any

of his personal right, and thus, a lenient view ought to be taken by

the learned trial court while considering his application for being

recalled as a witness and also for taking certain documents on

record.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the

submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

5.

On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the

learned trial court has recorded that the petitioner was given an

opportunity to be examined as witness and also to produce certain

documents and he has comprehensively utilized the opportunity of

being examined, he has filed an affidavit and he has also

submitted 19 documents, which includes Najri Naksha, Pattas,

[2023:RJ-JD:36583]

(3 of 3)

[CW-12211/2023]

Baynamas, and Pen Drive along with a detailed Map of the village

and five photographs on 12.07.2023 as well as 13.07.2023.

6.

This Court also finds that the learned trial court has given

sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to depose before the

learned trial court and produce every single document, which was

available to them to be taken on record and the exhaustive

proceeding of his stand having been taken on record on

12.07.2023 as well as 13.07.2023, and thereafter, giving any

fresh opportunity has been recorded as a never ending

phenomena to which this Court agrees.

7.

In light of the aforesaid observations, no interference in the

present petition is called for and the same is accordingly

dismissed. However, if law permits, those docum