[2026:RJ-JP:3806] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 265/2026 1. State of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The District Magistrate, Office of The District Magistrate, Bani Park, Jaipur. 3. Director General of Police, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur. 4. Superintendent of Police, Jaipur North, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur. 5. S.H.O Police Station- Amer Thana, District- Jaipur. 6. Commandant, 5Th Battalion, RAC, Jaipur. ----Petitioners/Defendants Versus 1. Shrimati Abida Begum W/o Sharfuddin, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 643, Bisayatiyo Ka Mohala, Chokdi Ghatgate, Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur. 2. Shefuddin S/o Nasruddin, Resident of H R Colony Plot 285/04, Near New Masjid, Char Darwaza, Jaipur. 3. Momuddin S/o Shefuddin, Resident of H R Colony Plot 285/04, Near New Masjid, Char Darwaza, Jaipur. 4. Ahsanuddin S/o Shefuddin, Resident of H R Colony Plot 285/04, Near New Masjid, Char Darwaza, Jaipur. 5. Alimuddin S/o Shefuddin, Resident of H R Colony Plot 285/04, Near New Masjid, Char Darwaza, Jaipur. ----Respondents/Plaintiffs Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 353/2026 1. State of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The District Magistrate, Office of The District Magistrate, Bani Park, Jaipur. 3. Director General of Police, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur. 4. Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur North, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur. 5. S.H.O Police Station- Amer Thana, District- Jaipur. [2026:RJ-JP:3806] (2 of 6) [CW-265/2026] 6. Commandant, Fifth Battalion, R.A.C’., Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus Shrimati Abida Begum W/o Sharfuddin, Resident of Plot No. 316/4, H.A.R. Colony, Near New Masjid, Chaar Darwaaza Bahar, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma-AAG with Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma Mr. Surendra Singh Ranawat-ACP, Amer Jaipur For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/01/2026 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both petitions, hence the same are being decided by this common order. 2. By way of filing these petitions, a challenge has been led to the impugned orders both dated 01.11.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-1 in two separate civil suit bearing Nos. 199/2025 and 200/2025 by which the evidence of the petitioners-State has been closed in both the suits and the cases were posted for final arguments. 3. Counsel for the State-respondent submits that two separate suits for injunction were instituted by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff”) against the defendant- petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “defendant”) before the Court of Additional Civil Judge. Counsel submits that when the [2026:RJ-JP:3806] (3 of 6) [CW-265/2026] matters were posted for recording the evidence of one police person namely Shri Bhopal Singh Bhati-Assistant Commissioner of Police on 25.08.2025, there was a procession of Devnarayan Ji, certain untoward incident took place wherein certain persons got injuries and in order to maintain law and order, the aforesaid witness could not appear in the witness box for recording of his evidence. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by the trial Court. Counsel submits that the statements of the aforesaid witness are essential for just decision of the matter, hence last opportunity be granted to the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose subject to payment of certain amount of cost to the other side (plaintiff). 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that two separate suits for permanent injunction were submitted by the plaintiff against the defendant way back in the year 2006 and thereafter, the pleadings of both sides were completed, issues were framed and the evidence of both sides were recorded. It appears that several dates were posted for recording of the statements of the aforesaid witness but he could not appear on the date fixed in the matters and even on 25.08.2025, no explanation has been furnished by the petitioner about the absence of the aforesaid witness on the earlier dates, though the explanation has been furnished for his non-appearance on 25.08.2025 i.e. to maintain law and order in the above procession wherein the untoward incident occurred which was beyond his control. [2026:RJ-JP:3806] (4 of 6) [CW-265/2026] 6. [2026:RJ-JP:3806] (4 of 6) [CW-265/2026] 6. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of the witness from the defendant side is essential for just decision of the cases, as the subject land is under dispute and is claimed by both the sides, both the petitions are disposed of on the following terms and conditions (I) The defendant would pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- in both the cases to the plaintiff (total Rs.50,000/-) within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (II) The defendant would plant 25 shade bearing trees in both the cases (total 50 plants) in their vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and he is further directed to look after and protect these shade bearing trees. (III) The defendant would submit the photographs of these shade bearing trees along- with an undertaking before the trial Court to show that the Condition No.II imposed by this Court has been duly complied with by him and he would take care of these plants till they grow and get in proper shape and he would submit the actual photographs of these trees at the end of every quarter months in every year till disposal of the suit. 7. The reasons for passing this present order directing the defendant to plant 50 shade bearing trees is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees as [2026:RJ-JP:3806] (5 of 6) [CW-265/2026] directed above, is one such initiative, which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh and oxygen-rich environment. 8. In case, the aforesaid terms and conditions imposed by this Court are complied with by the petitioner within the above stipulated time, last opportunity would be granted to the petitioner to examine the aforesaid witness-Bhopal Singh Bhati in the witness box on the next date fixed before the trial Court. It is made clear that the statements of the aforesaid witness be recorded on the said date and if not possible due to paucity of time, then by fixing a short fixed date. 9. It is made clear that in case the aforesaid witness fails to appear before the trial Court and also fails to record his statements on the dates so fixed by the trial Court, no further opportunity would be granted to the aforesaid witness for the aforesaid purpose. 10. It is made clear that this ex-parte order has been passed by this Court without issuing notices to the other side only to avoid further delay in disposal of the suits as the same are lying pending before the trial Court for last more than two decades i.e. since 2006. However, in case, the respondent feels aggrieved by this order, he would be at liberty to move appropriate application for recalling of this Court. [2026:RJ-JP:3806] (6 of 6) [CW-265/2026] 11. Looking to the fact that the suits are lying pending since 2006, it is expected from the trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending suits expeditiously as early as possible on the basis of the evidence led by both the sides, strictly in accordance with law. 12. Stay applications and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/2-3