[2025:RJ-JP:6685] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1555/2025 1. Shridhar Sharma Son Of Late Chandradhar Ji, Resident Of Everest Colony, Plot No. 8, Near Flat Of Dr. Gulab Singh Harda, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 2. Smt. Vandana Sharma Wife Of Shridhar Sharma, Resident Of Plot No. 9, Averest Colony, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Vidhyadhar Son Of Late Chandradhar Ji, Resident Of Plot No. 32, Near Jaipur Dairy Booth, Averest Colony, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj). 2. Smt. Minaxi Dave D/o Late Chandradhar Ji And Wife Of Shri Kamal Dave, Resident Of Polo Ground First Pavta Jodhpur Raj. At Present Chief Librarian, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M M Rajan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Aayushi Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. R S Gurjar Mr. Manish K. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 14/02/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the orders dated 16.11.2024 and 17.01.2025 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in civil suit No. 185/2012 whereby the applications filed by the defendants under Order 26 Rule 1 CPC and the application for recording the evidence of the witness Krishna Gupta through video conferencing have been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:6685] (2 of 3) [CW-1555/2025] Learned Sr. counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a civil suit for partition and permanent injunction in which defendants filed an applications under Order 26 Rule 1 CPC for recording statements of witnesses Kailash Narayan, Pawan Kumar and Smt. Krishna Gupta through commissioner but the trial Court vide order dated 16.11.2024 dismissed the said application. He further submits that after that, defendant No. 1 filed an application for recording the evidence of witness-Smt. Krishna Gupta through video conferencing but the trial Court also dismissed the said application vide order dated 17.01.2025. He further submits that witness- Smt. Krishna Gupta is more than 80 years of age and she could not move. So, in the interest of justice, evidence of witness-Smt. Krishna Gupta be got recorded through commissioner or video conferencing as court deems proper. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Sr. counsel for the defendants and submits that defendants wanted to cause delay in the case therefore the applications filed by the defendants have been dismissed. So, the present petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that witness-Smt. Krishna Gupta is above age of 80 years. As per the statement of the learned Sr. counsel for the defendants she could not move to court for [2025:RJ-JP:6685] (3 of 3) [CW-1555/2025] adducing the evidence. So, in the interest of justice, petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendants is allowed, impunged orders are set aside and the trial Court is directed to record the evidence of witness-Smt. Krishna Gupta through commissioner on the next date of hearing and decide the suit expeditiously. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/7