[2026:RJ-JP:11145] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1319/2023 Kailash Chand Mehta Son Of Shri Ramnarayan Ji Mehta, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of 94, Near Pnb College, Village Mukundpura, Tehsil And District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Miss Pakhi Tyagi Daughter Of Late Shri Ankush Tyagi, Aged About 17 Years, Resident Of 129, Second Floor, Doctors Colony, D.c.m., Ajmer Road, Old Ward No. 14, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Poorvi Manocha Wife Of Late Shri Ankush Tyagi. 2. Smt. Poorvi Manocha Wife Of Late Shri Ankush Tyagi, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of 129, Second Floor, Doctors Colony, D.c.m., Ajmer Road, Old Ward No. 14, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmedra Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 16/03/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.10.2022, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Civil Suit No. 40/2021, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking discovery of the divorce decree has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which had been executed by Ankush Tyagi. After the death of Ankush Tyagi, the suit was instituted against his legal successors, namely Ms. Pakhi Tyagi, daughter of Ankush [2026:RJ-JP:11145] (2 of 3) [CW-1319/2023] Tyagi, along with Smt. Purvi Manocha, who is stated to be the wife of the deceased Ankush Tyagi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the said suit, Purvi Manocha i.e. defendant-respondent No. 2 filed her reply contending that she had already been divorced from late Ankush Tyagi and, therefore, she has no concern with the present suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that she is the natural guardian of the minor daughter, Pakhi Tyagi, and therefore she is required to represent and defend the interests of the minor in the suit and she cannot deny her responsibility as the natural guardian. 5. He further contends that in order to bring the true facts on record regarding whether she had actually been divorced from Ankush Tyagi or not, it was necessary to call for the divorce decree. Therefore, the present writ petition may be allowed and order dated 20.10.2022 may be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent No. 2 is not denying her responsibility as the natural guardian of Pakhi Tyagi. She has merely stated in her reply that she has no personal defense in the suit as she had already been divorced from the original executant of the agreement to sell, namely Ankush Tyagi. He further submits that there was no necessity to call for the said document, as she has already stated on oath that she had obtained a divorce from Ankush Tyagi and that she is not claiming any right in respect of the property of Ankush Tyagi in the capacity of his wife in the present suit. [2026:RJ-JP:11145] (3 of 3) [CW-1319/2023] 7. During the course of hearing, both parties are in agreement that Ms. Pakhi Tyagi (defendant-respondent No. 1) has now attained majority and, therefore, she has an independent right to contest the suit against the plaintiff. 8. This Court also finds that since defendant-repondent No. 2 has clearly stated on oath that she has no defence in the present suit in her personal capacity as she has already been divorced from late Ankush Tyagi, there is no necessity to direct discovery of the divorce decree under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC, as the same is not required for proper adjudication of the suit property. 9. This Court finds that no error has been committed by the learned trial court so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending application, if any(s), stands disposed of. 11. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all objections available to him during the proceedings of the suit. (BIPIN GUPTA),J JUBIN /52