[2025:RJ-JP:5718] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6655/2023 1. Mahaveer Prasad Son Of Shri Brij Lal Mahajan Khajanchi, Resident Of Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)(Deceased) 1/1. Shanti Devi Wife Of Late Shri Mahaveer, Aged About 86 Years, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Near Ram Bhawan, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 1/2. Sunil Son Of Late Shri Mahaveer, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Near Ram Bhawan, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Gurusharan, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Guruprem, (Deceased) 2/1. Urmila Wife Of Late Shri Gurupram, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 2/2. Vijay Kumar Son Of Late Shri Gurupram, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 2/3. Anita Daughter Of Late Shri Gurupram, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 2/4. Sunita Daughter Of Late Shri Gurupram, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 2/5. Lalita Daughter Of Late Shri Gurupram, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 2/6. Babita Daughter Of Late Shri Gurupram, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 2/7. Princy Daughter Of Late Shri Gurupram, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 2/8. Yachika Daughter Of Late Shri Gurupram, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Hansaraj Son Of Jagdish Prasad Bidani, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Lokesh Son Of Jagdish Prasad Bidani, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Suryakant Son Of Jagdish Prasad Bidani, R/o Mohalla [2025:RJ-JP:5718] (2 of 4) [CW-6655/2023] Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 6. Mukesh Son Of Jagdish Prasad Bidani, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 7. Mahaveer Prasad Son Of Shri Brij Lal Mahajan Khajanchi, Resident Of Mohalla Buchahera, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 7/1. Rama Devi Wife Of Late Shri Puran Daughter-In-Law Of Late Shri Mahaveer, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Near Ram Bhawan, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 7/2. Priya Daughter Of Late Shri Puran, Grand Daughter Of Late Shri Mahaveer, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Near Ram Bhawan, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 7/3. Ronak Son Of Late Shri Puran, Grand Son Of Late Shri Mahaveer, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Near Ram Bhawan, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 7/4. Mithlesh Son Of Late Shri Mahaveer, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Near Ram Bhawan, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 7/5. Kamlesh Son Of Late Shri Mahaveer, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Near Ram Bhawan, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 7/6. Angoori Daughter Of Late Shri Mahaveer, R/o Mohalla Buchahera, Near Ram Bhawan, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta with Ms. Sampati Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 10/02/2025 This civil writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, [2025:RJ-JP:5718] (3 of 4) [CW-6655/2023] Kotputli, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in case No. 11/2022, whereby the said court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and against the order dated 18.01.2023, whereby the trial Court allowed the application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 6-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit for eviction and rent and mesne profit against the defendants in which plaintiffs moved an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and the trial Court vide order dated 18.01.2023 wrongly allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs for adducing the secondary evidence. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that defendants filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the order 18.01.2023 passed by the trial Court but the trial Court vide order dated 17.02.2023 dismissed the review application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that plaintiffs filed an application for adducing the secondary evidence with regard to notice given by them. Plaintiffs had deliberately wrote that they wanted to adduce secondary evidence with the regard to registered will. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that he had filed reply with regard to application and the same was overlooked. So, the orders dated 18.01.2023 and 17.02.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:5718] (4 of 4) [CW-6655/2023] It is an admitted position that application filed by the plaintiffs clearly revealed that they wanted to adduce the secondary evidence with regard to registered will. Trial Court vide order dated 18.01.2023 allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs with regard to adducing the secondary evidence of the registered will because it was a public document. There is no reason to arrive at the conclusion that the said document is forged one. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had not committed any error in allowing the application with regard to secondary evidence of the registered will and dismissing the review application. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/139