HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 52/2019 1. Ramdayal Son Of Mool Chand, Sine Deceased, Through His Legal Representatives - 1/1. Smt. Shanti Devi Wife Of Late Ramdayal, Aged About 82 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 1, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. (since deceased) 1/2. Smt. Laxmi Devi Daughter Of Ramdayal Wife Of Vinod Kumar Garg, Resident Of Badawas Ka Mohallan, Kotputli, District Jaipur. 1/3. Smt. Gyatri Devi Daughter Of Ramdayal Wife Of Ramesh Chand, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Radho Madho Ki Gali, Khandela Bazar, Srimadhopur, District Sikar. 1/4. Smt. Savitri Devi Daughter Of Ramdayal Wife Of Murari Lal Agrawal, Resident Of Ajitgarh, District Sikar. 1/5. Smt. Santosh Devi Daughter Of Ramdayal Wife Of Sundar Lal Agrawal, Resident Of Laxmi Nagar, Near Heeramoti Cinema, Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Jagdish Son Of Pokarmal, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Vaishy, Resident Of Kapil Mandi, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan) 3. Sanwarmal Son Of Ramdayal, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Vaishy, Resident Of Kapil Mandi, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Shivnarayan, Since Deceased Through His Legal Representatives 1/1. Shankar Lal Son Of Late Shivnarayan, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Vaishy, Resident Of Kapil Mandi, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan) 1/2. Vishnu Kumar Late Shivnarayan, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Vaishy, Resident Of Kapil Mandi, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan) 1/3. Ramji Lal Late Shivnarayan, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Vaishy, Resident Of Kapil Mandi, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan) (2 of 4) [CW-52/2019] 5. State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur, Through Its Branch Manager, State Bank Of Bikaner, Branch At Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Now Merged In State Bank Of India). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vidhut Kumar Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 21/01/2025 Matter comes up on an application (I.A. No.1/2024) under Order 22 Rule 2 CPC. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed. Word “Deceased” is inserted against the name of petitioner No.1/1-Smt. Shanti Devi. Amended cause title which is filed with the application is taken on record. The civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioners plaintiffs (for short 'the plaintiffs') against the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (for short 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No.03/2008, whereby the application filed by the respondents- defendants (for short 'the defendants') has been disposed of observing that that the writting dated 10.10.55 scribed on Rs.1.00 stamp paper was inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition, declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in which the defendant filed an application before the trial court to the effect that writting dated 10.10.55 and (3 of 4) [CW-52/2019] Punch-decision being unregistered and insufficently stamp were inadmissible in evidence. The trial court vide order dated 19.11.2018 while disposing of the application filed by the defendants has not considered the contents/writing dated 10.10.55. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that it is a recital and not an agreement. So, the trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that for the said document, registeration is required. So, the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the trial court be set-aside. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the trial court rightly observed that the said document is inadmissible in evidence as the said document was unregistered and insufficiently stamp. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendant. It is an admitted position that in the writing dated 10.10.55, it was mentioned that although the plot No.5 was purchased in the name of Shivnarayana but the said property was a joint property. So, in my considered opinion, registeration was not required for the document. So, the order dated dated 19.11.2018 passed by the trial court regarding inadmissiblity of the document dated 10.10.55 is required to be set-aside. The civil writ petition filed by the plaintiffs is allowed. The order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the trial court regarding non- (4 of 4) [CW-52/2019] admisibility of the document dated 10.10.55 is set-aside. The trial court is directed to consider the said document in evidence. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/79