[2025:RJ-JP:47102] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17549/2025 Satyanarayan S/o Shri Tarachand Mahajan, Aged About 82 Years, R/o Nawalgarh, District Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan And Business Proprietor M/s Jagdish Prasad Pawan Kumar Shop No. 124, Ward No. 11, Main Bazar, Opposite Kalyanji Temple, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus Jagdish Prasad Saini S/o Shri Gigaram Saini, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Chirana, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Joshi, Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 21/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu, in Civil Regular Appeal No.16/2020 titled as 'Satyanarayan Vs. Jagdish' whereby the petitioner's application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to take on record the registered sale deed dated 28.07.2006, was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Court has seriously erred in rejecting the application and in not taking the registered sale deed dated 28.07.2006 on record. He further submits that the said document is relevant for the [2025:RJ-JP:47102] (2 of 3) [CW-17549/2025] adjudication of the lis and, therefore, ought to have been admitted. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 may kindly be set aside and the sale deed dated 28.07.2006 may kindly be taken on record. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the suit for eviction was filed in the year 2016 under the provisions of the Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In Paragraph-2 of the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff has stated that he purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 28.07.2006, and thereafter, served the legal notice dated 25.07.2015 thereby, terminating the tenancy of the petitioner and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff sought a decree of eviction against the petitioner. 5. After a detailed trial, the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2020. Being aggrieved of which the petitioner filed civil regular appeal and in the said appeal, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. Learned First Appellate Court, after detailed consideration, dismissed the said application while concluding that the aforesaid document is not disputed and was duly pleaded in the plaint. 6. Furthermore, the appeal, bearing no. 16/2020, has been pending for the last five years i.e. 2020, and the application for taking additional evidence/document on record was filed on [2025:RJ-JP:47102] (3 of 3) [CW-17549/2025] 16.10.2025, apparently for the purpose of delaying the hearing of the old appeal. 7. Apart from the above, the petitioner-tenant does not claim any right other than tenancy. Thus, the main issue involved in the appeal is about the legality/validity of the legal notice dated 25.07.2015, whereby tenancy of the petitioner was terminated, nothing else. 8. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to establish that he has taken due diligence to produce the document before the learned Trial Court. Even otherwise, the aforesaid document is not required for the learned Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In that view of the matter, the learned Appellate Court has rightly rejected the said application. 9. Therefore, the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the present Civil Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/3