[2025:RJ-JP:33186] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12100/2025 Dalvendra Kumari Wife Of Rampal Dagar, Daughter Of Dharmpal, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of At Present Rajaji Ki Haveli, Town Weir, District Bharatpur. (Raj). ----Petitioner/Applicant/Petitioner Versus Ramkali Wife Of Ramchanaran, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Kile Ke Paas, Town Weir, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj). ----Respondent/Non-applicant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chand Katara For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 21/08/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a challenge to the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.02, Weir, District Bharatpur (for short ‘the court below’) in Civil Case No.03/2025, whereby the court below closed the plaintiff’s evidence. 2. Considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ petitioner and perused the material available on the record including the order-sheets. 3. As per the facts on record, the plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction on 10.12.2020. After service of summons upon the defendant/ respondent- Ramkali, she submitted the written statement. [2025:RJ-JP:33186] (2 of 3) [CW-12100/2025] 4. As per the impugned order, the civil suit is pending for plaintiff’s evidence since 2021 and this fact has not been disputed by the counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ petitioner. Even after passing of about four years, the plaintiff has failed to get examine her evidence. 5. This Court vide order dated 13.08.2025 directed the counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ petitioner to place on record the order-sheets of the suit proceedings. 6. The plaintiff/ petitioner has filed the order-sheets of the suit proceedings, as directed by this Court on 13.08.2025. 7. On perusal of the order-sheets, it is revealed that on 10.12.2020 after registering the suit, summons were issued to the defendant/ respondent. On 15.12.2020, the counsel for the defendant/ respondent filed ‘Vakalatnama’ and written statement was filed on 04.02.2021 and on 18.02.2021 the issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the matter was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence on 19.03.2021. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence on 30.09.2021, 29.10.2021, 23.11.2021, 11.01.2022, 11.02.2022, 08.03.2022, 21.04.2022, 23.05.2022, 15.07.2022, 27.09.2022, 07.11.2022, 05.01.2023, 16.03.2023, 08.05.2023, 10.07.2023, 26.09.2023, 20.11.2023, 29.01.2024, 26.03.2024, 11.05.2024, 12.08.2024, 24.09.2024, 02.01.2025 & 17.02.2025, but on all the dates, the plaintiff sought time for her evidence. On 24.03.2025 last opportunity was allowed to the plaintiff to produce her evidence and the [2025:RJ-JP:33186] (3 of 3) [CW-12100/2025] matter was fixed for 23.04.2025. Again on 23.04.2025, the plaintiff was allowed again last opportunity to produce her evidence. Even thereafter the plaintiff failed to got examine her evidence. Therefore, the court below closed the plaintiff’s evidence. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the conduct of the plaintiff/ petitioner is not appropriate. The plaintiff/ petitioner is delaying the suit proceedings unnecessarily because the aforementioned order-sheets say that she has been allowed several opportunities and twice she was allowed last opportunities to produce her evidence. 9. In the Subordinate Courts, large number of civil cases are pending and if the litigants are allowed opportunities to produce their evidences for unnumbered times that would increase the pendency of the cases and in such circumstances the genuine litigants who want to get their matters disposed of earlier, would also suffer. 10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the court below. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK/ Dy. Registrar/81