[2026:RJ-JP:1951] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 556/2026 1. Manoj Kumar Kumawat Alias Manoj S/o Late Shri Suwalal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ward No 21 Naya, Palawas Road, Sikar (Raj) 2. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Shri Manoj Kumar Kumawat Alias Manoj, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward No 21 Naya, Palawas Road, Sikar (Raj) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Santosh Devi W/o Late Shri Amarhand, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ward No 21 Naya, Palawas Road, Sikar (Raj.) 2. Narendra Kumar Kumawat S/o Late Shri Amarchand, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No 21 Naya, Palawas Road, Sikar (Raj) 3. Manish Kumawat S/o Late Shri Amarchand, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No 21 Naya, Palawas Road, Sikar (Raj) 4. Smt. Sunita D/o Late Shri Amarchand W/o Manoj Prajapat., Aged About 39 Years, R/o Sikar Hall Sardarsahar, District Churu (Raj.) 5. Smt. Rekha D/o Late Shri Amarchand W/o Jitendra Kumawat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Behind Bioscope, Shastri Nagar, Sikar (Raj.) 6. Nagar Parishad, Sikar Through Commissioner. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kumawat Ritesh Ratanlal with Mr. Mainish Kumawat, Ms. Riya Kumawat & Ms. Poonam Kumawat For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 16/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 31.07.2025 as well as 26.11.2025, whereby the application of the plaintiff-respondent seeking permission to lead secondary [2026:RJ-JP:1951] (2 of 2) [CW-556/2026] evidence in regard to the document dated 15.07.2008 has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document of which the secondary evidence has been permitted is neither registered nor properly stamped and therefore, the same could not have been permitted to be taken into consideration as a secondary evidence. 3. This Court finds that the petitioner has not raised any objection about the admissibility of the document on account of fact of being unregistered or unstamped at the stage when the permission for secondary evidence was permitted. However, the said objection was raised by him while filing a review petition against the order dated 31.07.2025. 4. This Court finds that the objection as to admissibility of a document on account of being not properly stamped or unregistered can be taken only at the stage when the document is tendered in evidence. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the order dated 31.07.2025, as well as 26.11.2025. 5. However, if the said document is tendered in evidence, then it will be open for the petitioner to raise objection about the admissibility of the document on account of want of registration as well as appropriate stamp duty. If the same is raised by him, the learned Trial Court shall decide it in accordance with law. 6. With the above observations, the present civil writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J PARSHANT /20