[2026:RJ-JP:20357] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8036/2026 1 Vinod Kumar Agrawal S/o Lt. Shri Matadeen Agrawal, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Ward O. 12, Maharana Pratap Colony, Behind Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa. 2 Uma Shankar Agrawal S/o Lt. Shri Matadeen Agrawal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Ward O. 12, Near Old Post Office, Behind Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa. ----Petitioners/Defendants Versus Rishi Jain S/o Lt. Shri Santosh Kumar Jain, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Jain Bunglow, Baswa Road, Station Road Opposite Municipal Board, Bandikui, District Dausa. ----Respondent/Plaintiff For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanay Jain For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 14/05/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 07.04.2026, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui, District Dausa, whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner for taking additional documents on record has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a suit for possession has been instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner. During the course of cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness, the defendant-petitioner sought to confront the witness with a document which was not executed by the witness himself, but allegedly by the father of the witness. The [2026:RJ-JP:20357] (2 of 3) [CW-8036/2026] learned Trial Court declined to permit the question in absence of the said document being on record. 3. Thereafter, the defendant-petitioner filed an application seeking permission to place additional documents on record. The plaintiff-respondent opposed the same by filing a written reply. However, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 07.04.2026, rejected the said application. 4. Hence, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been preferred by the defendant-petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the document was not filed along with the written statement or included in the list of documents relied upon by the defence, the same can still be taken on record in terms of Order XIII Rule 1(3) CPC. He, therefore, contends that the learned Trial Court has committed a gross illegality in rejecting the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs. Nilofer & Anr.; Civil Appeal No.8146/2023 decided on 14.12.2023. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 8. This Court finds that the document sought to be relied upon for the purpose of cross-examination and refreshing the memory of the witness was not executed by the witness himself, but allegedly by another person, namely the father of the witness. However, the said document was neither part of the record nor included in the list of documents filed along with the defence, nor was it brought on record in accordance with the provisions of [2026:RJ-JP:20357] (3 of 3) [CW-8036/2026] Order VIII Rule 1(3) CPC. In absence thereof, such a document cannot be permitted to be introduced at the stage of cross- examination by invoking Order XIII Rule 1(3) CPC. 9. This Court is of the firm opinion that the attempt to introduce the document at this stage, under the guise of cross-examination or for refreshing memory, is not permissible in law. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds no error, illegality, or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the view of above, the present Civil Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/4