[2026:RJ-JP:20140] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8457/2026 1 Smt. Chandrakala, Aged About 85 Years, W/o Ramgopal 2 Smt. Sapna Joshi, Aged About 58 Years, W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Joshi 3 Smt. Sampati Devi W/o Late Ramotar, Aged About 78 Years, Through Power Of Attorney Vijay Kumar S/o Ramgopal Aged 63 Years, R/o Laxmangarh District Sikar At Present Flat No.32, Ganga Jamuna Apartment, 28/1, Sheikhspare Sarni, Kolkata 700017 4 Vijay Kumar S/o Ramgopal, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Laxmangarh District Sikar At Present Flat No.32, Ganga Jamuna Apartment, 28/1, Sheikhspare Sarni, Kolkata 700017 ----Petitioners Versus 1 Shri Lalit Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Shri Niranjanlal Sharma 2 Smt. Kalawati Sharma W/o Shri Niranjanlal Sharma, Aged About 75 Years, Both R/o Central Cottol Mill, Koliya Line No.2/2 Grish Ghose Road, Beluramath, Hawara, West Bengal 3 Babulal Sharma S/o Shri Sitaram Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No.20, Joshiyon Ka Jav, Laxmangarh, Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar 4 Nagar Palika Mandal, Laxmangarh Through Commissioner, Nagar Palika Mandal, Laxmangarh District Sikar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 13/05/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 22.04.2026, passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Laxmangarh, District-Sikar, in Suit No. 02/2022, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC has been rejected. [2026:RJ-JP:20140] (2 of 3) [CW-8457/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court, while rejecting the application, has recorded a finding that the document in question is admissible and may also be read for collateral purposes. He further submits that no such finding could have been recorded at this stage, as the stage of evidence has not yet commenced and the document has not been formally tendered in evidence. 3. Learned counsel further submits that whenever the document is tendered in evidence, the petitioner would have the right to raise objections regarding its admissibility on the ground of non-registration, and the said objection ought to be considered by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. Consequently, it is prayed that the order dated 22.04.2026 be quashed and set aside and the application filed under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC be allowed. In the alternative, it is prayed that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the order dated 22.04.2026 with regard to the admissibility of the document in question may not come in way when the document is tendered in evidence. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court finds that in the impugned order dated 22.04.2026, the learned trial Court has observed that the document dated 08.07.2016 is admissible even before the same has been tendered in evidence. 6. In view thereof, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that whenever the document dated 08.07.2016 is tendered in evidence, and if any objection is raised by the petitioner regarding its admissibility on account of non-registration, the learned trial [2026:RJ-JP:20140] (3 of 3) [CW-8457/2026] Court shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law, independently and without being influenced by any observations made in the impugned order dated 22.04.2026. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 8. It is further observed that if the respondents feel aggrieved by any observation made by this Court, they shall be at liberty to approach this Court by filing an appropriate application for recall/modification of the present order. 9. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J JUBIN /2