[2025:RJ-JP:6101] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19126/2024 Smt Shanti Devi W/o Shri Ramkaran, R/o Messors Dayal Industries, H-1017 Ke Pass Road Number 14, Vishkarma Industrial Area, Jaipur Through Shri Ramkaran S/o Shri Bhura Ram , Resident Of Messors Dayal Industries, H-1017 Ke Pass Road Number 14, Vishkarma Industrial Area, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Tejpal Saini S/o Late Shri Devi Lal Saini, Resident Of Plot No. Ai-1017 Ke Pass, Narayani Dadi Kanta, Sikar Road, No. 14, Vishkarma Industrial Area Jaipur Haal Resident Of Gram Harmada Milan Cinema Ke Pass, Tehsil Aamer, District Jaipur. 2. Smt. Phoola Devi W/o Late Shri Devi Lal, Resident Of Plot No. Ai-1017 Ke Pass, Narayani Dadi Kanta, Sikar Road, No. 14, Vishkarma Industrial Area Jaipur. ( Deceased). 2/1. Chhitar Mal Saini S/o Late Shri Devi Lal, Resident Of Gram Harmada Milan Cinema Ke Pass, Tehsil Aamer District Jaipur. 2/2. Rajendra S/o Late Shri Devi Lal, Resident Of Gram Harmada Milan Cinema Ke Pass, Tehsil Aamer District Jaipur. 2/3. Smt. Laddu Devi W/o Shri Ramlal Saini D/o Late Shri Devi Lal, Resident Of Gram Laxminarayanpura, Akeda Dugar, Tehsil Aamer District Jaipur. 2/4. Smt. Sarju Devi W/o Shri Ram Nath Saini S/o Late Shri Devi Lal, Resident Of Gram Laxminarayanpura, Akeda Dugar, Tehsil Aamer District Jaipur. 2/5. Smt. Kajodi Devi W/o Shri Moolchand Saini S/o Late Shri Devi Lal, Resident Of Gram Laxminarayanpura, Akeda Dugar, Tehsil Aamer District Jaipur. 2/6. Smt. Sundi Devi W/o Shri Kaluram Saini S/o Late Shri Devi Lal, Resident Of Gram Moti Bhanda, Machada Police Thana Harmada District Jaipur. 2/7. Smt. Seema Devi W/o Shri Babu Lal Saini D/o Late Shri Devi Lal, Resident Of Badanpura Chowk, Chomu District Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:6101] (2 of 3) [CW-19126/2024] Plaintiffs-Appellants 3. Maangi Lal S/o Late Shri Devi Lal, Resident Of Messors Shri Ram Engineers, H-1016 Ke Pas Road No. 14, Vishkarma Industrial Area Jaipur. ----Respondent/defendant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Kumar for Mr. Shashi Shekhar Gaur For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 12/02/2025 Instant civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No. 1 (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in civil suit No. 106/1996 (17/97) whereby the said court dismissed the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction in which defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC for taking document on record. He mentioned that another suit related to the disputed property was filed by the respondent No. 1-Tejpal in the year 1990, in which age of respondent No. 1-Tejpal was mentioned as 28 years and in the suit in hand which was filed in the year 1996 it was mentioned as 20 years. Defendant wanted to take documents on record but the trial Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 dismissed the application [2025:RJ-JP:6101] (3 of 3) [CW-19126/2024] filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the said document are necessary for the adjudication of the case. So, order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the application filed by the defendant be allowed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order. While dismissing the application filed by the defendant, trial Court clearly mentioned that the documents filed by the defendant were of the year 1990 and he had knowledge of the documents at the time of filing of the instant suit in the year 1996. Previously, he had also filed similar application in the year 2004 and said application was dismissed in the year 2010. Defendant wanted to cause delay in the trial Court proceedings. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Therefore, the present petition being devoid 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/102