[2025:RJ-JP:3978] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16771/2010 1. Ramesh S/o Nanuram, Aged 38 years; 2. Nanuram S/o Late Hukmaram, Aged 78 years; 3. Smt. Kabu W/o Nanuram, Aged 74 years; All residents of Gram Nidan, Dhani Isrisinghpura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Gopal Lal S/o Laduram Saini, Adopted son of Late Shri Lachuram Saini, Aged 52 years, R/o Gram Nidan, Dhani Isrisinghpura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondent-Plaintiff 2. Laduram Saini S/o Late Hukmaram, Aged 80 years; 3. Smt. Goma W/o Laduram Saini, Aged 75 years; All residents of Gram Nidan, Dhani Isrisinghpura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents/Defendants 4. Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. ----Proforma Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sonal Singh for Mr. Alok Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Saini Mr. Ramesh Kumar Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 28/01/2025 1. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. 2. Instant civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners-defendants, challenging the interlocutory order dated 20.10.2010 passed in Suit [2025:RJ-JP:3978] (2 of 2) [CW-16771/2010] No.20/2009 titled as ‘Gopal Lal Vs. Ramesh & Ors.’ by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, rejecting the objection of defendants not to exhibit the documents of partition. 3. Having heard counsel for petitioners and from perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, wherein the documents of partition have been allowed to be exhibited as Ex.13&14 in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. [(2001) 3 SCC 1]. 4. Since the documents are fundamental documents of the suit and the admissibility of documents should always be adjudged at the time of final hearing, hence, at this stage, the trial Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in rejecting the objection to not exhibit the documents of partition. 5. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not find any jurisdictional error on the part of the trial Court, in rejecting the objection, hence, no interference is warranted in the interlocutory order and the writ petition is devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed. 6. Since the writ petition has been dismissed, the interim order dated 31.10.2011 stands vacated and the trial Court may proceed in accordance with law. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/103