[2025:RJ-JP:47761] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17851/2025 Krishna Kumar Girdhar S/o Late Shri Prakash Nath Girdhar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 256, Frontier Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Pradeep Kumar Girdhar S/o Late Shri Prakash Nath Girdhar, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 256, Frontier Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Shri Praveen Kumar Girdhar S/o Late Shri Prakash Nath Girdhar, Aged About 51 Years, R/o 256, Frontier Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak, Adv. with Mr. Aditya Bohra, Adv. Ms. Ishita Rawat, Adv. Ms. Kanishk Singhal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 25/11/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in allowing the application filed by the respondent under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) CPC and in permitting the defendant to place on record the expert report dated 19.09.2025. It is further submitted that there was no reasonable ground for the defendant to withhold such report at the initial stage of the proceedings and therefore, the said report ought not to have been taken on record. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the report is based on documents which were in existence at the time [2025:RJ-JP:47761] (2 of 2) [CW-17851/2025] of filing of the suit and, therefore, the same could not be considered. It is further contended that the comparison of signatures in the expert report is based on photocopies and not on the original documents. Hence, the impugned order may kindly be set aside. This Court finds that the report itself has come into existence only on 19.09.2025 and therefore, there was no occasion for the defendant to file the said report at the primary stage of the suit. All such objections shall remain open for the petitioner to raise before the trial Court at the stage of evidence. The plaintiff will have full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who may be produced to prove the said report in evidence. Thus, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court finds no error in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, considering that the suit has been pending since 2014, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-172