[2025:RJ-JP:39180] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14445/2025 Shrinath Das S/o Lalchand, R/o Bhawanimandi, Tehsil Pachpahar, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan). ----Plaintiff-Petitioner Versus 1. Bithaldas Son Of Lalchand, Bhawanimandi (Since Deceased) through his Legal Heirs - 1/1. Smt. Pushpa Aacholiya W/o Late Shri Bithaldas Ji Aacholiya, R/o Kanpur Walon Ka Godam, Balaji Chauraha, Bhanwanimandi. 1/2. Shri Mohan Bihari Aacholiya S/o Late Shri Bithaldasji Aacholiya, R/o Kanpur Walon Ka Godam, Balaji Chauraha, Bhanwanimandi. 1/3. Shri Pradeep Aacholiya S/o Late Shri Bithaldasji Aacholiya, R/o Behind Balaji Mandir, Balaji Chauraha, Bhanwanimandi. 1/4. Smt. Krishna Karodia D/o Late Shri Bithaldasji Aacholiya, W/o Madhav Karodia, R/o 122, Prabhu Nagar, Near Bank Of India, Behind Rajendra Nagar Bridge, Indore (M.P.). 1/5. 2. Smt. Mangla Gupta D/o Late Shri Bithaldasji Aacholiya, W/o Madhav Das, R/o Mukhya Bazar Chauraha, Malanagar, District Byavra (Madhya Pradesh). Shyam Manohar S/o Lalchand (since deceased) through his legal heirs: 2/1. Anita W/o Shyam Manohar, 2/2. Pyiyal D/o Shyam Manohar, 2/3. Samridhi D/o Shyam Manohar, All R/o Bhawani Mandi, Tehsil Pachpahar, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan). ----Proforma-Plaintiff-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi with Mr. Rakesh Babu For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA [2025:RJ-JP:39180] (2 of 4) [CW-14445/2025] Order 23/09/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so as to challenge the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar (for short ‘the court below’) in Civil Suit No.01/2018, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order XIII Rule 10, Order VII Rule 14, Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC and section 151 CPC read with sections 79 and 80 of the Indian Evidence Act has been dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. Considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ petitioner and perused the material available on record along-with the writ petition. 4. It is borne out that the plaintiff/ petitioner and the respondent No.2 filed a civil suit for partition and declaration against the defendants in the year 2018. Written statement was also submitted by the defendants on 04.01.2021 and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues for adjudication were framed. When the case was at the final stage and the written statements also submitted by the defendants, the plaintiff/ petitioner submitted an application [2025:RJ-JP:39180] (3 of 4) [CW-14445/2025] on 26.05.2025 for summoning the record of the criminal regular appeal No.06/2022 related to Suit No.12/2011 and took on record the certified copies of the documents therein on record and further it was prayed that if the Court is unable to call for the record then the plaintiff/ petitioner may be permitted to file a fresh suit. 5. The learned court below dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner. 6. The suit was filed in the year 2018. The evidence of the parties was completed on 05.01.2024 and when the case was at the stage of final arguments, the application has been filed on 26.05.2025 for summoning the record and in the alternative to allow to file a fresh suit. 7. Firstly, the application has been filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner at a very belated stage i.e. when the suit was at the stage of final arguments and the defendants have already submitted their written statements. The plaintiff/ petitioner has made an application for summoning the record of an appeal. The plaintiff/ petitioner, if at all, was to rely upon any document which is in the record of the appeal of some other matter, he could have obtained the certified copies of those documents and could have filed the same on record. 8. When the case has reached at the final stage i.e. of final arguments after completion of the evidence of the [2025:RJ-JP:39180] (4 of 4) [CW-14445/2025] parties, allowing the plaintiff/ petitioner to file a fresh suit, would lead to a new litigation on the same facts and the issues which has already reached to a final stage, which could be a burden of one more litigation on the Courts. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court finds no error or illegality in the order passed by the court below and also finds no ground to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. 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/38