Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Maheshwari Samaj vs Late Pradeep Kumar Rathi S/O Late ... on 29 April, 2026
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2026:RJ-JD:20364]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6808/2026
Maheshwari Samaj, Pokran, District Jaisalmer Through Its
Representative Mr. Jaikishan Rathi S/o Narayandas Rathi, Aged About
76 Years, Resident Of Choudhariyon Ka Mohalla, Pokran, District
Jaisalmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Lrs Of Pradeep Kumar Rathi, S/o Late Premsukh Rathi Through
Legal Representatives
1/1. Smt. Shanta W/o Late Pradeep Kumar Rathi, Resident Of
Anikat Road, Near River, Suthala Khurd, Khamganv, District
Buldhana (Maharashtra)
1/2. Akshay S/o Late Pradeep Kumar Rathi, Resident Of Anikat
Road, Near River, Suthala Khurd, Khamganv, District Buldhana
(Maharashtra)
1/3. Pravesh S/o Late Pradeep Kumar Rathi, Resident Of Anikat
Road, Near River, Suthala Khurd, Khamganv, District Buldhana
(Maharashtra)
2. Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Premsukh Rathi, Resident Of
Khamganv, District Buldhana C/o. Prem Residency Hotel,
Khamganv, District Buldhana (Maharashtra)
3. Vimla Devi W/o Late Premsukh Rathi, Resident Of Khamganv,
District Buldhana C/o. Prem Residency Hotel, Khamganv,
District Buldhana (Maharashtra)
4. Ashok Kumar S/o Banshilal Sharma, Resident Of Suraj Pole,
Pokran, District Jaisalmer.
5. Rajendra Kumar S/o Mohanlal Sharma, Resident Of Savano Ka
Baas, Pokran, District Jaisalmer.
6. Bhanwardan S/o Padamdan Charan, Resident Of Pokran,
District Jaisalmer.
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Pokran, District
Jaisalmer.
8. Jugalkishore S/o Bejnath Tapadia, Resident Of Pokran, District
Jaisalmer
9. Ratanlal Tapadia S/o Bejnath Tapadia, Resident Of Pokran,
District Jaisalmer
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15129/2024
Maheshwari Samaj, Pokran, District Jaisalmer Through Its
Representative Mr. Jaikishan Rathi S/o Narayandas Rathi, Aged About
74 Years, Resident Of Choudhariyon Ka Mohalla, Pokran, District
Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Late Pradeep Kumar Rathi S/o Late Premsukh Rathi, Through
Legal Representatives
1/1. Smt. Shanta W/o Late Pradeep Kumar Rathi, Resident Of
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:34:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:05:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20364] (2 of 7) [CW-6808/2026]
Anikat Road, Near River, Suthala Khurd, Khamganv, District
Buldhana (Maharashtra)
1/2. Akshay S/o Late Late Pradeep Kumar Rathi, Resident Of Anikat
Road, Near River, Suthala Khurd, Khamganv, District Buldhana
(Maharashtra)
1/3. Pravesh S/o Late Pradeep Kumar Rathi, Resident Of Anikat
Road, Near River, Suthala Khurd, Khamganv, District Buldhana
(Maharashtra)
2. Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Premsukh Rathi, Resident Of
Khamganv, District Buldhana C/o Prem Residency Hotel,
Khamganv, District Buldhana (Maharashtra)
3. Vimla Devi W/o Late Premsukh Rathi, Resident Of Khamganv,
District Buldhana C/o Prem Residency Hotel, Khamganv,
District Buldhana (Maharashtra)
4. Ashok Kumar S/o Banshilal Sharma, Resident Of Suraj Pole
Pokran, District Jaisalmer.
5. Rajendra Kumar S/o Mohanlal Sharma, Resident Of Savano Ka
Baas, Pokran, District Jaisalmer.
6. Bhanwardan S/o Padamdan Charan, Resident Of Pokran,
District Jaisalmer.
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Pokran, District
Jaisalmer.
8. Jugalkishore S/o Bejnath Tapadia, Resident Of Pokran, District
Jaisalmer.
9. Ratanlal Tapadia S/o Bejnath Tapadia, Resident Of Pokran,
District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15534/2024
Maheshwari Samaj, Pokran, District Jaisalmer Through Its
Representatives Mr. Jaikishan Rathi S/o Narayandas Rathi, Aged About
74 Years, R/o Choudhariyon Ka Mohalla, Pokran, District Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Lrs. Of Pradeep Kumar Rahti, S/o Late Premsukh Rathi
Through Legal Representatives -
1/1. Smt. Shanta W/o Late Pradeep Kumar Rathi, Resident Of
Anikat Road, Near River, Suthala Khurd, Khamganv, District
Buldhana (Maharashtra).
1/2. Akshay S/o Late Pradeep Kumar Rathi, Resident Of Anikat
Road, Near River, Suthala Khurd, Khamganv, District Buldhana
(Maharashtra).
1/3. Pravesh S/o Late Pradeep Kumar Rathi, Resident Of Anikat
Road, Near River, Suthala Khurd, Khamganv, District Buldhana
(Maharashtra).
2. Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Premsukh Rathi, R/o Khamganv,
District Budhana C/o Prem Residency Hotel, Khamganv,
District Buldhana (Maharashtra).
3. Vimla Devi W/o Late Premsukh Rathi, R/o Khamganv, District
Budhana C/o Prem Residency Hotel, Khamganv, District
Buldhana (Maharashtra).
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:34:10 AM)
(Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:05:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20364] (3 of 7) [CW-6808/2026]
4. Ashok Kumar S/o Banshilal Sharma, Resident Of Suraj Pole,
Pokran, District Jaisalmer.
5. Rajendra Kumar S/o Mohanlal Sharma, Resident Of Savano Ka
Baas, Pokran, District Jaisalmer.
6. Bhanwardan S/o Padamdan Charan, Resident Of Pokran,
District Jaisalmer.
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Pokran, District
Jaisalmer.
8. Jugalkishore S/o Bejnath Tapadi, Resident Of Pokran, District
Jaisalmer.
9. Ratanlal Tapadia S/o Bejnath Tapadia, Resident Of Pokran,
District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari and
Ms. Arpita Depura
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshit Bhurani,
Mr. Salil Trivedi and
Dr. Ashok Kumar Godara
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order 29/04/2026
1. All these three writ petitions arise out of a Civil Original Suit No.104/2011 (new registration No.259/2017); Maheshwari Samaj Through Its Representatives Mr. Jaikishan Rathi v. Pradeep Kumar Rathi & Ors., which is at present pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Pokran, at the stage of plaintiff's evidence.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6808/2026, challenge has been made to the order dated 16.03.2026, whereby the application filed by petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, seeking to frame two additional issues, has been dismissed. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15534/2024, same prayer of petitioner to frame the same additional issues, was rejected vide order dated 23.08.2024 and that order is under (Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:34:10 AM) (Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:05:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:20364] (4 of 7) [CW-6808/2026] challenge. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15129/2024, challenge has been made by petitioner to the order dated 06.08.2024, whereby the trial Court declined to take on record the rejoinder filed by petitioner/ plaintiff.
3. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the record, including the impugned orders.
4. During the course of arguments, it has been apprised that, as far as the issue in respect of taking plaintiff's rejoinder on record is concerned, the same has come to rest, since the rejoinder has already been accepted on record by the trial Court with the no objection of defendants. In such view of the matter, the order dated 06.08.2024 challenged in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15129/2024 stands superseded and same will not affect the rejoinder of petitioner, which has been taken on record.
Accordingly, in light of the fact that respondents-defendants have no objection to take plaintiff's rejoinder on record, the order dated 06.08.2024 does not survive and is hereby quashed. The rejoinder filed by plaintiff shall be treated as part of pleadings and record, and may be considered by the trial Court. With such observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.
5. As far as the prayer of plaintiff for framing two additional issues, made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6808/2026 and 15534/2024, is concerned, this Court finds that petitioner has filed the suit for cancellation/ declaration of the registered sale deed dated 24.09.2009 as well as the agreement to sell dated 13.07.2009 as null and void. Petitioner's suit and prayer made therein is based on the pleadings that plaintiff had a registered gift deed dated 28.09.1974, executed in his favour and is owner of the (Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:34:10 AM) (Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:05:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:20364] (5 of 7) [CW-6808/2026] suit property, and agreement to sell and registered sale deed in question, executed by another person, are null & void qua his ownership rights. In respect of the fundamental relief prayed by plaintiff, Issues No. 1 and 2 have already been framed, which read as under:-
^^1& vk;k oknxzLr lEifRr dks mlds ekfyd f'kojru Hkkypan jkBh us oknh lekt ds i{k esa fnukad 28-09-1974 dks c['kh'kukek ds tfj, nku dj nh Fkh] rc ls oknh lekt oknxzr Hkwfe esa Lokeh o vf/kifr gS\ &oknh 2& vk;k bl oknxzLr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa tks bdjkjukek fnukad 13-07-2009 ,oa oS;ukek fnukad 24-09-2009 izfroknhx.k ds e/; fu"ikfnr gqvk gS] mls 'kwU; o fu"izHkkoh ?kksf"kr djkus dh fMØh oknh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ &oknh** The two additional issues proposed by plaintiff to be framed, read as under:-
^vk;k fookfnr lEifr ekgs'ojh lekt iksdj.k ds f'kockx ds uke ls tkuh tkrh gSa ftlesa f'koky; cuk gqvk gSa vkSj ekgs'ojh lekt iksdj.k dkfct gSa] tks Lo0 nkmnkl th ds feYdh;r dh Hkwfe gSa] vkSj f'kockx dh 6 ch?kk 10 fcLok Hkwfe nkmnkl th ds iq= f'kojru ,oa Hkkypan }kjk fnukad 28-09-1974 dks ekgs'ojh lekt dks c['kh'k dh] tks Hkwfe ekgs'ojh lekt ds LoRo dh gSa\ vk;k [kljk uEcj 699 dh Hkwfe f'kockx dks NksMdj 13 ch?kk 11 fcLok Hkwfe Lo0 ?ku';kenkl th dks olh;r dh ysfdu [kljk cUnkscLr esa 18 ch?kk 11 fcLok Hkwfe ntZ gksus dk Qk;nk mBkdj 6 ch?kk 10 fcLok Hkwfe c['kh'kukek fnukad 28-09-74 ekgs'ojh lekt iksdj.k dks f'kockx dh tehu nku nh ,oa /keZdq.M dks NksMdj izfroknh la[;k 6 v'kksd dqekj ds i{k esa cspku bdjkj fnukad 13-07-2009 esa mYys[k fd;k vkSj bldh tkudkjh ds ckotwn izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 3 us vke eq[R;kjukek jktsUnz dqekj izfroknh la[;k 5 ds i{k esa fnukad 29-08-2009 dks fu"ikfnr fd;k vkSj mlds vk/kkj ij izfroknh la[;k 5 us Lo;a ds i{k esa cspku ukek fu"ikfnr fd;k og fcuk vf/kdkj ,oa fof/k fo:) gSaA**
6. The trial Court, while declining to frame additional issues, has observed in the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 that since plaintiff has not sought any relief of declaration of his title/ ownership, the proposed issues are not required to be framed. The second application for framing same two additional issues, was filed by plaintiff after taking his rejoinder on record, and same came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.03.2026, in light of the earlier order dated 23.08.2024. The trial Court, in the impugned orders dated 23.08.2024 and 16.03.2026, also imposed costs of (Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:34:10 AM) (Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:05:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:20364] (6 of 7) [CW-6808/2026] Rs. 3,000/- & Rs.20,000/- respectively, upon the plaintiff, on the ground that the applications were filed with an intent to cause delay in the suit proceedings.
7. In the opinion of this Court, reasonings assigned by the trial Court, declining to frame two additional issues, that plaintiff has not made prayer for declaration of his title/ ownership, are unjustified and unwarranted, because plaintiff's suit is based on the registered gift deed and as per plaintiff, title/ ownership already rest and vest to plaintiff. Further, this Court finds that the proposed two issues sought to be framed by plaintiff, are essentially part of the pleadings of plaintiff, pleaded in the plaint and rejoinder, and have been made in order to seek cancellation/ declaration of the registered sale deed and agreement to sell as null and void. Hence, indeed, the proposed issues are part of the pleadings of plaintiff and plaintiff is at liberty to adduce evidence to establish his title/ ownership. The pleadings and evidence of plaintiff, obviously would be appropriately considered by the trial Court, while adjudicating Issues No. 1 and 2. Both Issues No.1 and 2, conjointly, indeed encompass the scope of the controversy sought to be raised through the proposed two additional issues.
Therefore, it is no more required to frame two proposed issues separately as additional issues.
8. In view of the above, it was not necessary for the trial Court to frame the additional issues separately as prayed for, but reasoning assigned by the trial Court is not justified, nevertheless, in the light of observations made hereinabove, this Court does not find any ground to direct to frame two additional issues separately, hence, final outcome of impugned orders is sustained.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:34:10 AM) (Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:05:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:20364] (7 of 7) [CW-6808/2026]
9. As far as imposition of costs of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively upon plaintiff in the impugned orders dated 23.08.2024 and 16.03.2026 is concerned, taking into consideration the controversy involved in the suit, and involvement of intricate issues relating to immovable property, the imposition of costs is hereby made easy, and to that extent, the impugned orders stand modified accordingly.
10. With the aforesaid observations, all three writ petitions stand disposed of.
11. Stay applications and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
12. A copy of this order be placed at each connected file.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin Sharma/ 6-8 (Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:34:10 AM) (Downloaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:05:33 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)