HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20765/2019

1.

Hanuman S/o Late Parsaram, R/o Bisau, Tehsil And Dis-

trict Jhunjhunu (since deceased).

1/1 Sushil Saini, aged about 30 years,

1/2 Dropati Devi saini, aged about 50 years,

Both son and daughter of hanuman prasad r/o bissau,

tehsil and district jhunjhunu

2.

Goverdhan Ram s/o Hanuman Prasad, R/o Bissau, Tehsil

And District Jhunjhunu (since decease) through it’s legal

representatives:-

2/1 Vimla Devi w/o late goverdhan ram, aged about 60

years.

2/2 Tarachand saini s/o late goverdhan ram, aged about

35 years,

2/3 Mahaveer Saini s/o late goverdhan ram, aged about

30 years.

2/4 Sampat devi d/o late goverdhan ram, aged about 25

years,

All r/o bissau, tehsil and district jhunjhunu.

3.

Omprakash, Aged About 58 Years

4.

Madan Lal, Aged About 55 Years

5.

Heeralal, Aged About 52 Years

6.

Ramavatar @ Shyamlal, Aged About 46 Years, Son Of

Hanuman Prasad, By Caste Mali, R/o Bissau, Tehsil And

District Jhunjhunu.

----Defendants-Petitioners

Versus

1.

Banwarilal, Aged About 48 Years

2.

Pawan Kumar, Aged About 32 Years

Both Sons Of Late Chimnaram, R/o Bissau, Tehsil And

District Jhunjhunu.

---Plaintiffs-respondents

3.

Nagar Palika, Bissau Through Chairman.

----Defendant-Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Intjar Ali

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Harsh Dadhich on behalf of

Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya

(2 of 3)

[CW-20765/2019]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

28/11/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under

Article 227, against the order dated 14.08.2019 passed by learned

Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu in Civil Suit

No.18/2010, whereby closed the opportunity to place on record

the document written Bahi dated 27.06.1976 produced by the

petitioner-defendants on duly stamped and registered and further

denied for marking exhibit on the written Bahi.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners

had filed the application for taking of the document after

impounding but trial court vide order dated 14.08.2019 dismissed

the application filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that as per direction of trial court, petitioners

had sent the document for impounding but Concern Authority had

taken time in impounding after the impounding. Petitioners had

submitted these documents before the trial court but trial court

wrongly dismissed the request of the petitioners. So, order of trial

court be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and

submitted that order of trial court is well reasoned. Petitioners had

taken adequate time. So, trial court rightly rejected the request of

the petitioners.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners and as well as learned counsel for the

respondents.

(3 of 3)

[CW-20765/2019]

It is admitted position that trial court had ordered for

impounding of documents and petitioners had sent these

documents as per the order of trial court. Concern Authority has

taken time in impounding the documents. In my considered

opinion, trial court wrongly disallowed the request of petitioners

for taking documents on record. So, order of trial court, deserves

to be set aside.

Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and

order of trial court dated 14.08.2019 is set aside and trial court is

directed to take impounding documents on record.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Seema/73