[2026:RJ-JP:6986] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19919/2025 Parwati Devi W/o Roop Chand, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of Brijlal Nagar, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.) ----Petitioner-Plaintiff Versus 1. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Malpura, Teshil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.) 2. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Rajpura, Panchayat Samiti Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.) 3. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Rajpura, Panchayat Samiti Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.) 4. Jannat W/o Abdul Shakur Deshwali, Resident Of Hathgi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.) ----Respondents-Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhadar Singh for Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 13/02/2026 1. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, service on respondents No.1 to 3 is dispensed with at the risk and cost of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ankit Sharma, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.4. 3. Thus, service is complete. 4. With the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is finally heard and decided. [2026:RJ-JP:6986] (2 of 4) [CW-19919/2025] 5. The present civil writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 29.11.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Malpura, District Tonk, in Civil Suit No. 14/2013 (CIS No. 2412/2014), whereby, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC was rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents sought to be produced are: (i) the death certificate of Smt. Sita Devi, and (ii) the negative final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. He contends that both documents are necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit. The sale deed under challenge is alleged to have been executed by Smt. Sita Devi; however, on the date of the alleged execution, she was not alive. 6.1 Therefore, the death certificate is a vital and material document to establish the said fact. He further submits that the death certificate, being a public document, cannot be fabricated or forged. Similarly, the negative final report is also a public document and is not susceptible to manipulation. It is contended that the learned trial Court rejected the application solely on the ground of delay, without considering the relevance and necessity of the documents. He, therefore, prays that the order dated 29.11.2025 be quashed and set aside, and the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application. He submits that the documents were already in existence and available with the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. No [2026:RJ-JP:6986] (3 of 4) [CW-19919/2025] explanation has been furnished as to why the documents were not produced earlier or included in the list of documents. Consequently, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the order dated 29.11.2025 deserves to be upheld. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. This Court finds that mere delay in filing documents cannot be the sole ground for refusing to take them on record, particularly when such documents are relevant for the proper adjudication of the dispute. The provision of Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, incorporated by the Amendment Act of 2002, confers wider discretion upon the Court as compared to the earlier provision under Order XIII Rule 2 CPC. The primary duty of the Court is to advance the cause of justice. Procedural lapses or delay, by themselves, ought not to defeat substantive rights where the documents are necessary for effective adjudication. 10 This Court further finds that both the documents in question are relevant and material for deciding the controversy involved in the suit. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the death certificate of Smt. Sita Devi and the negative final report to be taken on record, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondents. 11 It is made clear that the defendants shall be at liberty to file any rebuttal evidence in respect of the aforesaid documents, if so advised. 12 With the above observations, the present civil writ petition is allowed. The order dated 29.11.2025 is quashed and set aside. The application dated 27.10.2025 is hereby allowed and the two [2026:RJ-JP:6986] (4 of 4) [CW-19919/2025] documents are permitted to be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- and liberty to the respondents to produce evidence in rebuttal of the documents. 13. The learned trial Court is expected to decide the suit expeditiously, in terms of the directions already issued by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/15