[2026:RJ-JP:2712] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 424/2026 Praveen Kumar Son Of Late Shri Ramesh Shankar Agrawal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o 107, Dharampura, Bagh Bhatayari, G.t. Road, Ghaziabad (U.P.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kishor Singh Son Of Shri Girvar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Badgurjaron Ki Dhani, Tan Biharipur, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, P.s. Patan District Sikar (Raj.) 2. Girvar Singh Son Of Late Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Badgurjaron Ki Dhani, Tan Biharipur, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, P.s. Patan District Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brijendra Singh Kachhawa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta with Ms. Sampati Sharma & Ms. Anushree Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 21/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Neem ka Thana, District Sikar on the application termed as second application preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff for discovery of the documents under Order 11 Rule 12 & 14 CPC which has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit for damages was filed by him against the defendant on the ground that the machinery of the plaintiff was malafidely stolen by the [2026:RJ-JP:2712] (2 of 3) [CW-424/2026] defendant, and therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of the cost thereof. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defendant No. 1 in his reply has categorically admitted that he was in the possession of the machinery as the same was given to him in Supurdagi (सुपु्ቖगी) by the State Authorities. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the defendant has stated the fact that on 10.04.2013 in the presence of the plaintiff, the machinery has been handed over to the Authorities at Police Station, Patan District Bundi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, in order to prove the fact that the machinery was not deposited by the defendant, an application under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC was filed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner cannot seek permission to call for the entire case diary of the Police Authorities and supports the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court finds that the defendant has admitted the fact of having possession of certain machinery, which he obtained in Supurdagi (सुपु्ቖगी), and which, according to the defendant, was handed over to the police authorities. 8. This Court further finds that the burden to prove whether the said machinery was deposited with the police authorities lies upon the defendant and not upon the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no necessity to call for any case diary from the police authorities. [2026:RJ-JP:2712] (3 of 3) [CW-424/2026] Consequently, this Court finds that the application under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC has rightly been rejected by the learned Trial Court. No interference is thus warranted by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. With the above observations, the present civil writ petition is dismissed. 9. It is made clear that learned Trial Court while deciding the suit on merits will not be influenced by the dismissal of the application of the petitioner. Both the parties would be at liberty to raise all arguments. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA /KRATIKA/4