[2026:RJ-JP:2249] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15607/2022 Netram Son Of Gokul Chand, Resident Of Dhani Asawali, Tan Sirohi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Kamladevi Wife Of Sh. Surajmal, Resident Of Dhani Devmaharaj, Tan Chala, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.) 2. Nanchhi Devi Wife Of Sh. Rohitash, Resident Of Dhani Asawali, Tan Sirohi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.) 3. Santosh Devi Wife Of Sh. Nekiram, Resident Of Dangiyon Ka Mohalla, Bad Ka Kheda Wala Balaji Ke Paas, Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15606/2022 Nanchhi Devi Wife Of Sh. Rohitash, Resident Of Dhani Asawali, Tan Sirohi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Kamladevi Wife Of Sh. Surajmal, Resident Of Dhani Devmaharaj, Tan Chala, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.) 2. Netram Son Of Gokul Chand, Resident Of Dhani Asawali, Tan Sirohi, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.) 3. Santosh Devi Wife Of Sh. Nekiram, Resident Of Dangiyon Ka Mohalla, Bad Ka Kheda Wala Balaji Ke Paas, Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Gaur Mr. Dhanna Ram For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order [2026:RJ-JP:2249] (2 of 3) [CW-15607/2022] 19/01/2026 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15607/2022: 1. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Court on 19.12.2025, therefore, stayed the proceedings of the learned trial Court. However, today also no one is present to oppose the writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that a suit was filed by the re- spondent-plaintiff for permanent injunction on 17.10.2013. In the said suit, time was given by the learned trial Court for filing the reply to the petitioner till 19.05.2017, and ultimately on 19.05.2017, the reply was closed. Thereafter, an application was filed for opening the reply and along with the application the reply was also filed. 4. The said application was rejected by the Court on 15.07.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was suffering from liver and brain diseases and there- fore, was unable to file the reply when the time was granted by the Court and had immediately filed the reply on 03.07.2017. 5. He also submits that even the trial had not started when the reply in the suit was filed by him. 6. It is further contended by the petitioner that on 19.05.2017, when the matter was listed before the learned trial Court, the right to reply was closed and the matter was posted on 09.08.2017 for ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff. 7. He submits that before that date itself, the reply was filed by the petitioner on 03.07.2017. 8. No one is present to oppose the arguments. [2026:RJ-JP:2249] (3 of 3) [CW-15607/2022] 9. Considering the same, this Court deems it appropriate that the reply filed by the petitioner is permitted to be taken on record, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the plaintiff. 10. If the cost is paid on or before the next date of hearing in the learned trial Court, the Court shall take the reply on record and proceed in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, the present civil writ petition No. 15607/2022 stands disposed of. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15606/2022: 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner do no want to press this writ petition. 2. Therefore, this Civil Writ Petition No. 15606/2022 is dis- missed as not pressed. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J PARSHANT /50-51