[2026:RJ-JP:87] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20702/2025 Hansraj S/o Kanhaiyalal Jat, Who Calls Himself Adopted S/o Hanuman Jat, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Detail Of The Petitioner / Defendant No. 01 As Mentioned In The Plaint) Hansraj S/o Man Singh @ Hanuman, Aged 46 Years, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil Pawta, District Kotputali, Behrod, Rajasthan (Detail As Per The Petitioner) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Pappu S/o Govind Jat, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Chetram S/o Govind Jat, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. Puranmal S/o Govind Jat, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. Kanhaiyalal S/o Choturam Raj, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) 5. Tehsildar, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur. 6. Sub Registrar, Kotputali 7. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Magistrate, Jaipur, District Jaipur. 8. Halka Patwari, Patwar Halka Raghunathpura, Tehsil Kotputali 9. Sona S/o Chotu, R/o Raghunathpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshad Kapoor For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 06/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.11.2025 whereby the application filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A) and 3 read with Section 151 CPC for taking documents on record has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wanted to place on record certain documents, namely, the bills of material [2026:RJ-JP:87] (2 of 2) [CW-20702/2025] purchased and Bahi maintained by him and his father, and a medical certificate of disability of his adoptive father. 3. Learned counsel submits that the said documents are very relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the suit proceedings. 4. He further contends that earlier, one set of bills had been placed on record along with an application, which was allowed, and the documents were taken on record. However, the present application for taking on record the bills, Bahi and disability certificate has been rejected. 5. Heard. 6. This Court finds that the suit has been filed by the respondent seeking a declaration that the registered adoption deed dated 14.10.2011 is forged, null and void, and liable to be cancelled. 7. The learned trial Court, considering the nature of the documents and the suit arrived at the conclusion that the documents as wanted by the petitioner to be placed on record are not relevant for the purpose of determination of the issues between the parties and therefore, rejected the application. 8. This Court finds that no error has been committed by the learned trial Court, so as to call for any interference under its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Hence, the present civil writ petition stands dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J PARSHANT /17