HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18587/2025 Rishi Jain Son Of Late Shri Santosh Kumar Jain, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Jain Bungalow, Basawa Road, Tiraha Station Road, Opposite Municipality, Bandikui, District Dausa. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Vinod Kumar Agarwal Son Of Late Shri Matadin Agarwal, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 12, Maharana Pratap Colony, Behind Police Station, Bandikui, District Dausa. 2. Uma Shankar Agarwal Son Of Late Shri Matadin Agarwal, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 12, Near Old Post Office Premises, Behind Police Station, Bandikui, District Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/01/2026 1. With a limited prayer, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short “plaintiff”) seeking issuance of directions to the Senior Civil Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa to fix a proper timeline with an upper limit, allowing the respondents-defendants (for short “defendants”) to complete their cross-examination within the stipulated time, i.e., one month. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that a suit for eviction of the defendants was submitted by the plaintiff before the court below way-back in the year 2012, i.e., more than 13 years back and till date the suit is proceeding in snail’s pace, (2 of 3) [CW-18587/2025] hence, under these circumstances, the plaintiff approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6606/2023 seeking directions to the Court below to decide the pending suit expeditiously. Learned counsel submits that affidavits with regard to examination-in-chief were submitted by the plaintiff way-back in the year 2019 and after passing of five years of the same, the cross-examination has been started w.e.f. 20.08.2024 and more than 18 months have passed, however, till date the cross- examination has not been completed by the defendants and the case is being deferred from one date to another, which is causing unnecessary delay in disposal of the suit. Hence, under these circumstances, appropriate directions be issued, as sought for, in the instant petition. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the plaintiff and considering the fact that a suit for eviction is lying pending before the Trial Court since last more than 13 years and also looking to the fact that the affidavit with regard to examination-in-chief was submitted by the plaintiff way-back in the year 2019, i.e., more than six years back and the case is proceeding at the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiff by the defendants since August, 2024 and more than 18 months have passed thereafter. 5. 5. In the fitness of the facts and overall circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition with the expectation from the Trial Court not to entertain any unnecessary requests made by either side to defer (3 of 3) [CW-18587/2025] the matter from one date to another and make all possible endeavours to bound the defendants to complete their cross- examination within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and further make endeavours to decide the pending suit expeditiously, as early as possible, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the sides and after recording the evidence of both the sides in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/1