[2026:RJ-JP:3532] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 113/2026 1. Mukesh Kumar Son Of Kanhaiya Lal Dhobi, R/o H.no. 157- A Loco Dande Ke Piche , Hasanpura, Jaipur. 2. Manoj Kumar Son Of Kanhaiya Lal Dhobi, R/o H.no. 157-A Loco Dande Ke Piche , Hasanpura, Jaipur. 2/1. Tarun Kumar S/o Late Manoj Kumar, R/o H.no. 157-A Loco Dande Ke Piche, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 2/2. Kapil Kumar S/o Late. Manoj Kumar, R/o H.no. 157-A Loco Dande Ke Piche, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 3. Kishore Kumar Son Of Kanhaiya Lal Dhobi, R/o H.no. 157- A Loco Dande Ke Piche, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 4. Rajesh Kumar Dhobi Son Of Kanhaiya Lal Dhobi, R/o H.no. 157-A Loco Dande Ke Piche, Hasanpura, Jaipur. 5. Kusum, D/o Late Kanhaiya Lal 6. Uma, D/o Late Kanhaiya Lal 7. Archana D/o Late Kanhaiya Lal, All Daughters Of Kanhaiya Lal Dhobi R/o H.no.157-A Loco Dande Ke Piche, Hasanpura, Jaipur. ----Petitioners/Defendants Versus 1. Rajesh Dhobi, S/o Mangla Ram 2. Choti Dhobi, S/o Mangla Ram 3. Sanjay, S/o Mangla Ram 4. Pooranmal, S/o Mangla Ram 5. Omprakash S/o Hariram Dhobi, (Deceased) 5/1. Neetu, W/o Ravi Kumar D/o Late Omprakash 5/2. Manju, W/o Mukesh Kumar D/o Late Omprakash 5/3. Santosh, W/o Rajkumar Late Omprakash 5/4. Gajraj S/o Late Omprakash, All Residents Of H.no 16, Kabir Marg, Banipark, Jaipur. ----Respondents/Plaintiffs For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raunak Singhvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Ms. Reena Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 27/01/2026 [2026:RJ-JP:3532] (2 of 3) [CW-113/2026] 1. Mr. Amit Jindal along with Ms. Reena Goyal appears as caveator. 2. With the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition was finally heard. 3. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 17.11.2025, passed by learned District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby application filed under Section 151 CPC praying that the documents which has been exhibited may be declared as inadmissible in evidence, was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents were fabricated documents as at the time when he had sought the documents from the concerned Authority, it was informed to him that the documents are in a mutilated condition and the copy cannot be given. However, when the respondent applied for the same, he was given the documents and, therefore, prays that the document is a fabricated one and cannot be made admissible in evidence. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the documents were permitted to be taken on record vide order dated 17.04.2025. The said order has attained finality as no objection was raised by the petitioner. 6. He further submits that thereafter the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.04.2025 permitted the respondents-plaintiffs to lead further evidence to prove the documents which were taken on record under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. He further submits that thereafter additional evidence was also lead by the respondent- plaintiff and the document has been exhibited. [2026:RJ-JP:3532] (3 of 3) [CW-113/2026] 7. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the order dated 17.11.2025, submits that at this stage there is no procedure of asking the Court to decide the admissibility or inadmissibility of the document. 8. Heard and perused the impugned order. 9. This Court finds that the documents were taken on record on 17.04.2025 which were never challenged by the petitioners and that the plaintiffs-respondents were given liberty to prove this document vide order dated 25.04.2025, which again was not challenged. 10. This Court also finds that subsequently the document has been exhibited and now after exhibition of the document, the challenge was made by the petitioners on the ground that document is fabricated document. This Court is of the opinion that whether a document is a fabricated document has to be proved by the parties during the course of the trial and the said objection has to be decided at the stage of hearing of the suit, while deciding the suit and not in piecemeal. 11. Therefore, this Court finds no error, so as to call for any interference, under its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the present Civil Writ Petition is dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/JUBIN/17