[2026:RJ-JP:2462] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12403/2025 1. Mangal Chand Son Of Shri Nanu Ram Garg, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 5, Near Ganga Mandir, Pawata, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Pradeep Kumar Son Of Shri Mangal Chand Garg, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 5, Near Ganga Mandir, Pawata, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Plaintiffs/Petitioners Versus 1. Gajanand Son Of Binja Ram, (Now Deceased) 1/1.Smt. Anchi Kumawat, Wife Of Late Gajanand 1/2.Prem Devi, Daughter Of Late Gajanand 1/3. Manju Kumawat, Daughter Of Late Gajanand 1/4.Ratan Lal, Son Of Late Gajanand 2. Ratan Lal Son Of Late Gajanand, Residents Of Ward No. 5, Near Ganga Mandir, Pawata, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Defendants/Non-Petitioners For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.R. Kumawat with Mr. Ritesh Kumawat Ms. Riya Kumawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 20/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kotputli, District Kotputli- [2026:RJ-JP:2462] (2 of 3) [CW-12403/2025] Behror, whereby the review application filed by the respondent seeking correction in the order-sheet was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court could not have reviewed its own order dated 25.07.2025. He further submits that his evidence has wrongly been closed by the learned trial Court. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the order-sheet dated 25.07.2025, after considering the arguments of both the parties, the learned trial Court ordered that the evidence in chief of Bodu Ram would not be considered and directed that the same be kept in Part-D of the file. However, while passing the said order, the name of Bodu Ram was inadvertently recorded to be present for cross-examination. The learned Trial Court thus merely corrected this clerical error. It is further submitted that there was no requirement for any person to remain present, as no other witness whose affidavit was on record remained incomplete. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It appears that learned counsel for the petitioners has neither assailed the order dated 14.07.2025 nor the order dated 25.07.2025. Therefore, at this stage, he cannot seek permission to examine Bodu Ram as a witness. Consequently, the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [2026:RJ-JP:2462] (3 of 3) [CW-12403/2025] 6. With the above observations, the present writ petition is dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/46