[2025:RJ-JP:20800] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12549/2023 Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Shri Kaushal Kumar, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of House No. A-13, Telephone Colony-Ii, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Shri Kailash Chandra Gupta S/o Late Shri Ramji Lal Gupta, Shop Owner Plot No. A-14, In South Facing Shop, Presently Tenant In Shop No. A-13, Telephone Colony - Ii Tonk Phatak, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12490/2023 Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Shri Kaushal Kumar, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of House No. A-13, Telephone Colony-Ii, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Shri Kailash Chandra Gupta S/o Late Shri Ramji Lal Gupta, Shop Owner Plot No. A-14, In South Facing Shop, Presently Tenant In Shop No. A-13, Telephone Colony-Ii Tonk Phatak, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sandeep Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Shobhit Tiwari with Mr.Rohit Tiwari JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/05/2025 1. By way of filing these writ petitions, a challenge has been led to the common order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the Rent Tribunal-cum-Additional Senior Civil Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan by which the applications filed by the petitioner under [2025:RJ-JP:20800] (2 of 3) [CW-12549/2023] Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 7 Rule 14(5) CPC has been rejected. 2. On instructions, counsel for the petitioner does not want to press his prayer to the extent of challenging the impugned order by which his application seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 has been rejected. 3. Counsel submits that the petitioner is only pressing upon the prayer relating to the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for taking the gift deed on record. Counsel submits that an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, “the Act of 2001”) was submitted by the petitioner against the respondent and during pendency of the said application, an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was submitted by him for taking the gift deed and other documents, related to the partition, which were executed in favour of the sons, i.e., Rajendra and Vikas on 01.09.2008 & 02.06.2008. Counsel submits that with regard to the same prayer, an application was submitted by the respondent under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC for summoning the aforesaid documents which were in power and possession of the petitioner. Counsel submits that both the applications submitted by the parties were rejected by the Court below vide order dated 24.09.2018. 4. Perusal of both the applications submitted by the petitioner as well as by the respondents respectively indicate that these documents are essential for just decision of case and both the parties are making a common prayer. 5. Without going into controversy of the matter as to whether these documents are relevant or not and looking to the facts that [2025:RJ-JP:20800] (3 of 3) [CW-12549/2023] both the parties are making common prayer and the said prayer, sought by both the parties has been declined by the Court below, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition by quashing the impugned order dated 24.09.2018 qua the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and the petitioner is permitted to produce the requisite documents on record. The respondents would be at liberty to cross-examine the petitioner with regard to the validity and veracity of these documents during the course of examination. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petitions stand disposed of. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /94-95