[2025:RJ-JP:16702] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5236/2025 Fateh Chand Bagla S/o Late Heeralal Ji Bagla, R/o House No.47, Nai Dhanmandi, Kota Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dr. Ramkrishan Bagla S/o Late Shri Heeralal Ji, Aged About 74 Years, R/o 2-F-2, Rajathan Housing Board Colony, Kunhadi Kota Rajasthan 2. Smt. Krishna Bagla W/o Late Shri Mohanlal Ji, R/o House No. 47, Nai Dhanmandi, Kota 3. Manoj Bagla S/o Mohanlal Ji Since Deceased, Through Legal Heirs R/o House No. 47, Nai Dhanmandi, Kota 4. Anita W/o Late Manoj Bagla, R/o House No. 47, Nai Dhanmandi, Kota 5. Harsh S/o Late Manoj Bagla, R/o House No. 47, Nai Dhanmandi, Kota 6. Anju Jhanwar D/o Mohanlal Ji, R/o House No. 47, Nai Dhanmandi, Kota 7. Alka Kasat D/o Mohanlal Ji, R/o House No. 47, Nai Dhanmandi, Kota 8. Jyoti Bagla D/o Mohanlal Ji, R/o House No. 47, Nai Dhanmandi, Kota 9. Rekha Bagla D/o Mohanlal Ji, R/o House No. 47, Nai Dhanmandi, Kota 10. Daya Sindhu Bagla D/o Mohanlal Ji, R/o House No. 47, Nai Dhanmandi, Kota 11. Rammurti D/o Late Heeralal Ji W/o Ramesh Chand Ji Maheshwari, R/o 1-Gha-5, Dadabari Vistar Kota 12. Lalta D/o Late Shri Heeralal Ji W/o Bhagwandas Ji Maheshwari, R/o 348, Dadabari Vistar Yojna, Kota ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Mittal, Advocate with Mr. Kunal Swami, Advocate For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI [2025:RJ-JP:16702] (2 of 3) [CW-5236/2025] Order 21/04/2025 : Instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dt.05.02.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Kota, in Civil Suit No.4/2014, whereby the application under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. On 03.01.2014 the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration & partition of the disputed house against the defendants including the present petitioner. During proceedings, on 06.12.2024 an application under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 of C.P.C. was filed by petitioner seeking directions to the respondent No.2 to produce certified copy of the order dt.27.11.1981. The defendant No.1 filed reply dt.13.01.2025 stating therein that the certified copy of aforesaid order can be obtained from the concerned Court. Thereafter, the application filed by petitioner was dismissed by the ld. trial Court vide its order dt.05.02.2025. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that ld. Trial Court has committed an illegality in rejecting the application on the ground that the photostat copy of the order dt.27.11.1981 has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the certified copy thereof is not available with the respondent No.2. It was also observed by the ld. Trial Court that the certified copy of the aforesaid order can be obtained by the petitioner from the concerned Department. The ld. Trial Court after considering the reply of the respondents, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order dt.05.02.2025. Therefore, the finding of ld. Trial Court is perverse & based on extraneous consideration and, hence, the impugned order may be quashed & set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:16702] (3 of 3) [CW-5236/2025] I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner & have gone through the impugned order and the other material available on record. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner has failed to disclosed the fact in the application that as to how the certified copy of the order dt.27.11.1981 can be in possession of respondent No.2 -Smt. Krishna Bagla (defendant No.1 in original suit), whereas the certified copy of the aforesaid order can be obtained by the petitioner from the concerned Department, and in the suit also, photocopy of the aforesaid order was filed by the plaintiff, which also established that the respondent No.2 could not have certified copy of the aforesaid order. The application under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner was totally misconceived and the same was rightly dismissed by the ld. Trial Court by order dt.05.02.2025, which ex-facie does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record whatsoever warranting interference therein in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J. ashok-SAURABH /2