[2025:RJ-JP:2449] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23245/2018 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Plot No. 92/3, Parasram Nagar, Dher Ka Balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Shanti Devi Sharma W/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Prasad, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Plot No. 92/3, Dher Ka Balaji, Parasram Nagar, Sikar Road, Jaipur 2. Smt. Sudha Sharma W/o Sh. Bhupendra Kumar Mittal, R/o Behind Jodla Power House, Meeno Ki Dhani, V.k.i. Road 14, Sikar Road, Jaipur 3. Smt. Radha Sharma W/o Sh. Rajesh Sharma, R/o Plot No. 45, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara 4. Smt. Madhu Mishra W/o Sh. Rajkumar Mishra, R/o C/o Radheshyam Mishra, Plot No. 13, Basant Vihar, Near Bhawani Niketan School, Sikar Road, Jaipur 5. Sh. Mahendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Sh. Udai Singh Shekhawat, By Caste Rajput R/o Village Khudi Choti, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Shankar Sharma For Respondent(s) : None 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 29.08.2018 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.149/12, whereby the trial [2025:RJ-JP:2449] (2 of 3) [CW-23245/2018] Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff and closed the plaintiff’s evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which due to unavoidable reasons plaintiff could not appear before the trial Court on 29.08.2018 and filed an application for giving one opportunity to produce in evidence but the trial Court vide order dated 29.08.2018 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff and closed his opportunity to adduce the evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that absence of the plaintiff for adducing the evidence before the trial Court was bona fide because he did not get leave from his office. So, in the interest of justice, the order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the trial Court be set aside and one more opportunity may be given to the plaintiff for adducing the evidence before the trial Court. None has put in appearance for the defendants. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that despite numerous opportunities having been given, plaintiff could not adduce the evidence before the trial Court. So, his evidence was closed. In the interest of justice, I deem it just and proper to grant one opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce the evidence at the cost of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the trial Court is directed to grant only one opportunity to the [2025:RJ-JP:2449] (3 of 3) [CW-23245/2018] plaintiff for adducing the evidence, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendants on or before the next date of hearing, failing which no further opportunity shall be granted by the trial Court to the plaintiff for adducing the evidence. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/73