[2026:RJ-JP:4156] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 575/2024 Dr. Chetan Shukla, S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Shukla, Aged About 62 Years, R/o House No. 149, Gali No. 1, Janakpuri Mala Road, Kota (Rajasthan) 324002. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Sudarshan Sharma W/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, R/o 1431-A, R.k. Puram, Kota. Successor, Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Moolchand Ji Sharma. 2. Ms. Abhishansha Sharma D/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, R/o 1431-A, R.k. Puram, Kota. Successor Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Moolchand Ji Sharma. 3. Shri Alankar Sharma S/o Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, R/o 1431-A, R.k. Puram, Kota. Successor Late Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Moolchand Ji Sharma. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brij Bhushan Ojha with Mr. Devanshu Agrawal. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwani Chobisa with Mr. Veerendra Singh Mr. Priyank Dixit. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 29/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.12.2023, passed by learned District Judge, Kota, in Civil Suit No. 119/2019, whereby, the application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,10,000/-, which was paid as loan to the defendant-respondent was filed before the learned Civil Court. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 CPC for discovery of the bank [2026:RJ-JP:4156] (2 of 3) [CW-575/2024] statement of the defendant’s Bank in which the amount was paid. However, he submits that the said application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26.07.2023, holding that the plaintiff can produce his statement of account to show the factum of payment to the defendant. 3. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter, he obtained the statement of account from his Bank, which was submitted along with the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC before the learned trial Court, which has been wrongly rejected. He further prays that the documents are very necessary and relevant for adjudication of the suit. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant opposes the prayer and contends that the said documents have been filed at the stage of final hearing of the suit and therefore, there were no bonafides of the plaintiff to not produce the documents along with plaint. He thus, supports the order dated 21.12.2023. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court finds that the document are the statement of Bank which cannot be doubted. Even otherwise the case of the plaintiff is that by way of certain cheques he has transferred the amount in the account of the defendant and to show that transfer he had submitted these statement of accounts. If the defendant has not received any such amount then there is always right available with the defendant to disprove this fact by placing his statement on account before the learned trial Court. This Court is [2026:RJ-JP:4156] (3 of 3) [CW-575/2024] of the opinion that the documents at this stage ought not to have been declined by the learned trial Court. 7. Considering the same, the order dated 26.07.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside and the documents are permitted to taken on record, subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- to the defendant- respondent. It is further made clear that the defendant- respondent will be entitled to place the evidence in rebuttal, if the plaintiff produces any evidence in support of these documents. 8. With the above observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Jubin /40