[2025:RJ-JP:725] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5323/2005 1. Darshan Kumar Arora S/o Late Shri Dinanath Ji Arora, Quarter No. 394, Gurnanakpura, Dhruv Marg, Jaipur (deceased) through legal representatives:- 1/1 Tarun Arora son of late Darshan Kumar Arora, resident of Quarter No. 394, Gurunanakpura, Dhruv Marg, Jaipur (Raj) 1/2 Manali Arora d/o late Darshan Kumar Arora, wife of Shri Sanatan Upmanyu, resident of Chrischonarain 133, 4126, Bettingen, Basel Stadt, Switzerland. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Krishan Kumar Arora S/o Late Shri Dinanath Arora, 11/258, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (since deceased) 1/1Dinesh Arora S/o Late Shri Krishan Kumar, 11/258, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, At Present Residing At 13/1066, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Raj. 1/2 Jitendra Arora S/o Late Shri Krishan Kumar, 11/258, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, At Present Residing At 13/1066, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Raj. 2. Smt. Pushplata W/o Chetan Das Sachdeva, C-185-186, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. 3. Smt. Ramesh Arora D/o Late Shri Dinanath Ji Arora, Quarter No. 394, Gurnanakpura, Dhruv Marg, Jaipur Raj. 4. Smt. Harish Kanta W/o Satish Kumar, Quarter No. 51, Gurunanakpura, Jaipur Raj. Since Deceased Through Her D/o Smt. Suman Sikarai W/o Shri Moti Sikari, R/o 51/a, Gurunanakpura, Jaipur. 5. Smt. Rita Rani W/o Shri Lal Chand Aahuja, A-225, Rajapark, Gali No.1, Nearby Hansh Palace, Jaipur Raj. 6. Sant Ram Das S/o Gopal Das, Shop No.6, Gandhi Market, Purohit Ji Ka Katla, Johri Bazar, Jaipur Raj. 7. Sushma Arora W/o Shri Surendra Arora, 2/579, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. 8. Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:725] (2 of 4) [CW-5323/2005] ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M M Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Lokesh Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. J P Goyal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Meenal Bhargava Mr. Rishi Parashar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 06/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 27.10.2004 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the application filed by the defendants under Section 65 of the Evidence Act has been dismissed. They have also challenged the order dated 31.05.2005 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. Learned Sr. counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction in which defendants filed a written statement in which it was clearly mentioned that father of the defendants as well as plaintiff Shri Dinanath Arora had executed a Will in favour of the defendants on 12.03.1987. Attested copy of the said Will was submitted by them with the written statement as the original Will was misplaced from the Scooter’s dickey of the defendants. Defendants had lodged an FIR but despite best efforts original Will was not found out and after [2025:RJ-JP:725] (3 of 4) [CW-5323/2005] the investigation, final report was filed. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the defendants filed an application before the trial Court for considering the copy of the said Will as a secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Learned Sr. counsel for defendant also submits that the trial court vide its order 27.10.2004 dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Defendants had filed a review petition against the said order before the trial Court but the said court also dismissed the review filed by the defendant vide order dated 31.05.2005. Learned Sr. counsel for the defendant also submits that original Will was lost. So, he could not produce the same on record. Attested copy of the Will was submitted with their written statement and the trial court overlooked the same. So, the orders dated 27.10.2004 and 31.05.2005 passed by the trial Court be set aside and permission be given to the defendant for adducing the copy of the said Will as secondary evidence. Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by the Learned Sr. counsel for the defendants and submits that defendants had not filed copy of the Will, which was forged one. Original Will was also not submitted by the defendants and not found out despite the enquiry conducted by the police authorities. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the present petition filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Sr. counsel for the defendants as well as Learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiffs. [2025:RJ-JP:725] (4 of 4) [CW-5323/2005] It is an admitted position that the defendants had filed a copy of the Will with their written statement. Validity of the said Will is not decided at this stage. Original Will was not in power and possession of the defendants as the same was lost. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. So, the orders dated 27.10.2004 and 31.05.2005 passed by the trial Court deserves to be set and aside and the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. Petition filed by the defendants is allowed and the orders dated 27.10.2004 and 31.05.2005 passed by the trial Court are set aside and the trial Court is directed to give permission to the defendant to adduce the copy of the said Will as a secondary evidence. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/298