HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11944/2025 1. Chetan Prakash Singhal, aged about 32 Years, S/o Late Shri Niranjan Kumar 2. Praveen Kumar Singhal S/o Late Shri Niranjan Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, Both R/o Vinodi Lal Gali, Beawar. Business Place Name And Style Of Vodaphone Showroom, Agrasen Bazar, Beawar. 3. Smt. Krishna Agarwal W/o Late Shri Niranjan Kumar Agarwal, R/o Vinod Lal Gali, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer (Rajasthan) At Present R/o Kalu Kunj Near Vardhman College, Outside Nehru Gate, Beawar. (Defendant Petitioner No. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 4 are purchaser defendant in the suit who purchase residential property House No. 1/220, New No. 19/a, purchased from defendant No. 5 to 10 through registered sale deed dated 04-08-2009). ----Defendants/Petitioners Versus 1. Vasudev Mangal S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Ji Agarwal, R/o House No. 1/220, New No. 19/A/19/AA, Old Cinema Gali, Gopal Ji Mohalla, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer. ----Plaintiff/Respondent 2. Vineet Kumar Singhal S/o Late Shri Niranjan Kumar, R/o Vinodi Lal Gali, Beawar . (Defendant petitioner No. 1 to 3 and defendantn/non petitioner no. 2 are purchaser defendant in the suit who purchase residential property House No. 1/220, New No. 19/A, purchased from defendant no. 5 to 10 through registered sale deed dated 04-08-2009). 3. Smt. Premlata Agarwal W/o Ramavtar Agarwal, R/o Prem Sadan Flat No. 13, Sector-2, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. 4. Smt. Suman Agarwal W/o Om Prakash, R/o Mangal Bhawan, House No. 1/220, Old Cinema Gali, Gopal Ji Mohalla, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer Rajasthan At Present R/o House No. T-19, Kishore Nagar, Path No. 07, Muralipura, Jaipur 302023 (Raj). 5. Smt. Asha @ Munni Agarwal, W/o Shri Subhash Chand Ji Didwaniya, R/o B-144, Laxmi Nagar, Pawta B, Road (2 of 6) [CW-11944/2025] Jodhpur (Raj). 6. Rakesh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Ji and Late Smt. Prabha Gupta, R/o Gupta Bhawan Ward No. 11, Diggi Mohalla, Beawar. In the capacity of self and Manager Karta of family Branch Self. 7. Smt. Savita Agarwal W/o Shri Arjunlal Ji Agarwal D/o Shri Omprakash Gupta and Late Smt. Prabha Gupta, R/o Agarwal Niwas, House No. 25/2, Joplink Road, Rajaram Mohan Ray Marg, Majarat Ganj, Lakhnaw, (U.p.) and Power of Attorney Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Gupta and Late Smt. Prabha Gupta R/o Gupta Bhawan Ward No. 11, Diggi Mohalla, Beawar. (Through Power of Attorney Dated 22-07-2009) 8. Smt. Saroj Gupta W/o Shri Radhey Shyam Agarwal, D/o Late Shri Om Prakash Gupta And Late Smt. Prabha Gupta R/o 202/khrokha Building, Second Floor Plont No. 116, Sector 02, Charkop Kandiwali West, Mumbai-400067 (Maharashtra) and Power of Attorney Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Om Prakash and Late Smt. Prabha Gupta R/o Gupta Bhawan Ward No. 11, Diggi Mohalla, Beawar. (Through Power Of Attroney Dated 22-07-2009). Since the defendant non--Petitioner No. 6,7,8 in the capacity of self and in the capacity of exclusive legal heirs of Late Smt. Prabha Gupta W/o Late Shri Om Prakash Gupta (Father And Mother Respectively). Above refereed defendant No. 6 to 8 are impleaded as party due to the fact that they are seller of disputed property. In the capacity of self and in the capacity of Exclusive Legatee Smt. Vimla Devi Harlalka W/o Late Sh. Babu Shri Chirangi Lal Ji Harlalka their biological daughters and grandson and granddaughter, therefore, they have been impleaded as party being seller who sold the disputed the property through Registered Sale Deed Dated 04-08-2009 In Favour Of Defendant No. 1 To 4 9. Smt. Kavita Devi W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Garg, R/o 8/37, Nehru Nagar, Behind Geeta Bhawan, Beawar. Impleaded As Party Because She Has Purchased Double Story Alleged Commercial Building Situated At Fatehpuritya Bazar Agrasen Bazar, Beawar From Defendant No. 1 Bearing Old No. 1/220 And New No. 2 (3 of 6) [CW-11944/2025] House No. 9 Measuring 69.79 Sq. Yard In Which At The Southern Side Alleged Commmon Nal For Use Of Plaintiff Which Was Open From East To West In Agrasen Market Which Has Been Included And The Defendant No. 1 To 4 And Other Want To Demolish And Closed The Same. 10. The Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Beawar. 11. Rejendra Kumar S/o Shri Ratan Lal Ji, R/o Vinodi Lal Ji Ki Gali, Bichadali Mohalla, Beawar. (Since Deceased Expired On 09-02-2025) Through His Legal Repsentatives:- 11/1. 11/2. 11/3. 11/4. 12. Smt. Savita Singhal, W/o Late Shri Rejendra Kumar Singhal. Miss Ankita Singhal, D/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Singhal. Ankur Singhal, S/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Singhal. Anant Singhal S/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Singhal, All R/o Vinodilal Gali, Bichadali Mohallad, Teja Chowk, Beawar. Vimal Kumar Bansal S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal Bansal, R/o Beawar C/o Gyarsi Lal Vimla Kumar Bansal Kirana Merchant, Out Side Surajpole Gate, Beawar. 13. Sub-Registrar, Registrar Office, Tehsil Campus, Beawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Jai Prakash Gupta with Mr.Aditya Sharma For Respondent(s) : None present JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/01/2026 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Beawar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) by which the application submitted by the defendants-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as “the (4 of 6) [CW-11944/2025] defendants”) under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for taking the documents on record has been rejected. 2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of services. 3. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the suit for specific pre-emption has been filed by the plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs”) against the defendants before the trial Court. 4. Counsel submits that when the cross-examination was done by the defendants with the plaintiffs, certain documents Exhibiting A1 to A8 were submitted on the record and a detailed cross- examination was done in relation to those documents. Counsel submits that those documents are certified copies of the judgments/ orders/ plaint/ written statements submitted by the parties in other civil litigation. Counsel submits that once the validity of these documents have not been denied and disputed by the plaintiffs during cross-examination, there was no reason or occasion available with the trial Court to put the note at the bottom of the cross-examination that aforesaid documents Exhibited as A1 to A8 are allowed to be exhibited for a “limited purpose”. 5. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the defendants were under apprehension that the submitted/ exhibited documents would not be ready at the time of the final disposal of the suit, hence, under that apprehension, an application was submitted under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for taking these documents again on record, however, the said application has been rejected on 10.07.2025 by the trial Court. (5 of 6) [CW-11944/2025] 6. Counsel submits that in case, these documents are not allowed to be taken on record again then, the defendants have an alternative prayer seeking issuance of directions to the trial Court to take into count these exhibited documents that were Exhibited as A1 to A8 at the time of hearing of the final arguments for the purpose of disposal of the suit. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. Perusal of the record as well as the evidence/ cross- examination of the plaintiffs indicates that when the detailed cross-examination was done by the defendants with the plaintiffs, certain documents, i.e., A1 to A8 were produced on the record and several questions were asked about the same and the plaintiffs have admitted all those documents which are the certified copies of the orders/ judgments/ plaint/ written statement submitted by the parties in the other civil litigation. 9. Once these documents have not been denied or disputed, there was no reason or occasion available with the trial Court to put a note unnecessarily that the aforesaid documents are allowed to be exhibited for “limited purpose”, the trial has not specified or defined “the limited purpose”. Once the documents have been allowed to be exhibited on the record and the same has not been denied or disputed by the other side, the same are required to be considered in evidence at the time of hearing and final disposal of the pending litigation. 10. Considering all above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition by issuing directions to the trial Court to take into count (6 of 6) [CW-11944/2025] the submitted documents Exhibited as A1 to A8 at the time of final hearing and disposal of the suit. 11. Needless to observe the trial Court would decide the suit strictly on its merits, without being influenced by any of the observation made by this Court. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/17