[2025:RJ-JP:3343] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 661/2024 Smt. Rukmani Devi @ Rukma Devi Wife Of Shri Kaluram Meena, Resident Of Shiv Mandir Ke Pichhe, Dhirawaton Ki Dhani, Village Sawai Getor, Teshil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dhanna Lal Son Of Late Shri Roduram, Resident Of Cheelgaadi Restorant Ke Paas (Airport Ke Pass), Village Khokhawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 2. Chandalal Son Of Late Shri Roduram, Resident Of Cheelgaadi Restorant Ke Paas (Airport Ke Pass), Village Khokhawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Since deceased through LR’s):- 2/1. Narayani wife of late Shri Chandalal, Resident Of Cheelgaadi Restorant Ke Paas (Airport Ke Pass), Village Khokhawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 2/2. Prahlad son of Late Shri Chandalal, Resident Of Cheelgaadi Restorant Ke Paas (Airport Ke Pass), Village Khokhawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 2/3. Ramesh Son of Late Shri Chandalal, Resident Of Cheelgaadi Restorant Ke Paas (Airport Ke Pass), Village Khokhawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 2/4. Suresh Son of Late Shri Chandalal, Resident Of Cheelgaadi Restorant Ke Paas (Airport Ke Pass), Village Khokhawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur 3. Ramsahai Son Of Late Shri Roduram, Resident Of Cheelgaadi Restorant Ke Paas (Airport Ke Pass), Village Khokhawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 4. Narayan Son Of Late Shri Roduram, Resident Of Cheelgaadi Restorant Ke Paas (Airport Ke Pass), Village Khokhawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 5. Ramlal Son Of Shri Dhanna Lal, Resident Of Cheelgaadi Restorant Ke Paas (Airport Ke Pass), Village Khokhawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:3343] (2 of 4) [CW-661/2024] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Jatav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naval Kishore Saini for Mr. S.N. Kumawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 23/01/2025 Matter comes up on an application (I.A. No.1/2024) filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 Chandalal died and he has filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for taking his LRs on record but due to typographical error name of Prahlad son of Late Chandalal has been typed twice, whereas deceased respondent No. 2 Chandalal had three sons Prahlad, Ramesh and Suresh. He has prayed that in this view of the matter in place of Prahlad son of Late Shri Chanda Lal, as mentioned at serial No. 2/4 in the amended cause title, it be read as Suresh son of Late Shri Chandalal and amended cause title be taken on record. Application is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 2- Chandalal are taken on record. Amended cause title is taken on record. This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No.18, Jaipur Metro-I, Headquarter Sanganer in application No. 186/2018, whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff for opening the evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:3343] (3 of 4) [CW-661/2024] Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondents- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which earlier the trial Court closed the plaintiff’s evidence on 13.12.2018. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application for opening the evidence but the trial Court vide order dated 26.03.2019 dismissed the same. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed in default by the trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff was restored to its original number and after that the plaintiff filed the application before the trial Court for opening the evidence but the trial Court vide order dated 14.12.2023 dismissed the same. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the plaintiff is an old and illiterate lady. So, in the interest of justice, the impugned orders 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. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the same and submitted that ample opportunities had already been given to the plaintiff for adducing the evidence. So, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties 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, her 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.25,000/-. [2025:RJ-JP:3343] (4 of 4) [CW-661/2024] Accordingly, petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the trial Court are set aside and the trial Court is directed to grant only one opportunity to the plaintiff for adducing the evidence, subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendants on or before the next date of hearing, failing which no 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 Tahir/66