[2025:RJ-JP:2550] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 672/2024 Madan S/o Chhotanath, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Badh Bichhidona, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Mohan S/o Chhota Nath, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Badh Bichhidona, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur. 2. Ramprasad S/o Kalu, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Badh Bichhidona, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur. 3. Mukesh S/o Kalu, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Badh Bichhidona, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur. 4. Teekaram S/o Kalu, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Badh Bichhidona, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur. 5. Bhola S/o Gopal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Badh Bichhidona, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur. 6. Jn S/o Gopal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Badh Bichhidona, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur. 7. Vikram S/o Gopal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Badh Bichhidona, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur. 8. Gram Panchayat Bichhidona, Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bichhidona, Panchayat Samiti Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur. 9. Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur. 10. Tehsildar, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur. 11. Halka Patwari Bichhidona, Patwar Halka Donaycha, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawai Madhopur. 12. Murari S/o Chhotanath, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Badh Bichhidona, Tehsil Malarna Doongar, District Sawai [2025:RJ-JP:2550] (2 of 4) [CW-672/2024] Madhopur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pallavi Mehta Mr. T C Sharma for Mr. Neeraj Batra,GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 17/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bonli District Sawai Madhopur in civil suit No. 22/2017 titled as “Madan and Anr. vs. Mohan and Ors.” whereby the application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff and respondent No. 12 have filed a joint suit for cancellation of adoption deed dated 24.09.2021 against the defendant Nos. 1 to 11 (for short ‘the defendants’) in which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC for taking documents on record and the trial Court vide its order dated 14.03.2022 allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, took the documents on record and granted an opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses in relation to said documents, but since the witnesses Ram Prasad and Mukesh did not appear before the trial Court, the trial Court vide order dated 12.05.2022 closed the defendants’ [2025:RJ-JP:2550] (3 of 4) [CW-672/2024] evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that plaintiff filed an application before the trial Court under Order 18 Rule 17 read with CPC for summoning the aforesaid witnesses for their cross-examination, but the trial Court vide order dated 02.11.2023 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that trial Court took the aforesaid documents on record and granted an opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses in relation to said documents but the witnesses Ram Prasad and Mukesh were not present for their cross-examination. So, the plaintiff could not establish his case before the trial Court. So, the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the trial Court be directed to summon the aforesaid witnesses for their cross-examination. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that trial Court had closed the evidence of the witnesses Ram Prasad and Mukesh. So, there was no need to recall them for their cross-examination. So, the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the present civil writ petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that trial court vide order dated 14.03.2022 took the documents filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on record and gave liberty to the plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses Ram Prasad and Mukesh in relation to said documents but they had not appeared before the trial court for [2025:RJ-JP:2550] (4 of 4) [CW-672/2024] their cross-examination. Thus, the trial Court closed the defendants’ evidence. Since the documents filed by defendants for which cross-examination was sought from the witnesses, were not exhibited, so, in my considered opinion, there was no need for recalling the witnesses for cross-examination. In my considered opinion, trial court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. So, the present petition filed by the plaintiff being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/31