[2026:RJ-JP:15396] HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2276/2024 Rajendra Kumar Son Of Moolchand, Resident Of Village Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1 Nathu Son Of Bhura, Resident Of Village Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, Raj. (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives- 1/1 Smt. Dhanni Widow Of Shri Nathu, Resident Of Village Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, Raj. 1/2 Ramphool Son Of Shri Nathu, Resident Of Village Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, Raj. 2 State Of Rajasthan, Through Land Holder Tehsildar, Nangal Rajawatan 3 Sub Registrar, Lawan, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa. 4 Ramjilal Son Of Kajor, Resident Of Village Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, Raj. 5 Narbada Devi Wife Kajor, Resident Of Village Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, Raj. 6 Bhagwati Devi Wife Of Badri Narayan, Resident Of Village Mithawas, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JP Goyal, Senior Adv. Ms. Jyoti Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. BR Rana Ms. Preeti Soni for Mr. Vidyadhar Gathala HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment/Order 13/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.01.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, Family Court, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. [2026:RJ-JP:15396] (2 of 3) [CW-2276/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff could not lead the evidence for the reasons that the agreement for the sale of which the specific performance was sought was sent by the Court after impounding it to the Collector Stamps. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, thereafter the collector stamp passed an order being aggrieved by the order the petitioner submitted a review petition. That review petition was not decided, therefore, he approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition. In that writ petition the direction was issued to decide the review petition by the Collector Stamps. 4. In pursuance of that the review petition was decided, which was allowed and thereafter the correct stamp duty was assessed by the collector stamps, which has been paid and certificate to the effect has been issued by the collector stamp on 21.04.2025 and by the same date letter the documents has been sent back to the learned trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delay in leading the evidence on account of that the documents itself were not available when the evidence was closed. The document has been sufficiently stamped by the collector stamp only after the evidence has been closed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be given opportunity to lead the evidence on the affidavits already filed by the plaintiff. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the plaintiff petitioner cannot take excuse of the delay in having document sufficiently stamped. He submits that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the plaintiff petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for further opportunity to lead the evidence. [2026:RJ-JP:15396] (3 of 3) [CW-2276/2024] 7. Heard, perused the material available on record. 8. This Court finds that when the evidence was closed, the document which was impounded by the trial Court was not received by the trial Court and therefore plaintiff was not in a situation to lead any evidence in absence of the document. 9. This Court finds that the document has been sent to the trial Court after having been sufficiently stamped only on 21.04.2025, therefore, this Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to lead evidence as the document has been sufficiently stamped after the closure of the evidence. 10. In facts and circumstances of this Court, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order dated 25.01.2024, Passed by learned Special Judge, Family Court, Dausa, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. 11. The plaintiff petitioner is granted opportunity to lead evidence and produce all his witnesses for the purpose of examination as well as for cross examination only to extent of affidavits already filed by the plaintiff petitioner. The plaintiff petitioner shall also pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent. The said permission of evidence may be given by the trial Court only after the cost is being paid by the plaintiff petitioner. After the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant is also be entitled to lead his evidence. 12. With the above observations the writ petition stand disposed off. 13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off. (BIPIN GUPTA),J RAVINDRA KUMAR /30