Raj Kumar Mehta vs Jugal Kishore And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5292 Raj

(1 of 3) [CW-3084/2016]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3084/2016

Raj Kumar Mehta s/o Sh. Sohan Raj Mehta, by caste Oswal, aged about 52 years, resident of Merta, district Nagaur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Jugal Kishore s/o Balkishan Mantri Maheswari, aged about 36 years, resident of merta, district Nagaur (Raj.)

2. Paras Kanwar w/o Srichand Dosi Oswal, aged about 87 years, resident of merta, district Nagaur (Raj.)

3. Anil Kumar s/o Karan Singh Gehlot Mali, aged about 56 years, resident of merta, district Nagaur (Raj.)

4. Mohammed Salim s/o Abdul Ajij Musalman, aged about 46 years, resident of merta, district Nagaur (Raj.)

5. Mohammed Iqbal s/o Mohammed Ishak Chhipa, aged about 54 years, resident of merta, district Nagaur (Raj.)

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3085/2016 Raj Kumar Mehta s/o Sh. Sohan Raj Mehta, by caste Oswal, aged about 52 years, resident of Merta, district Nagaur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Jugal Kishore s/o Balkishan Mantri Maheswari, aged about 36 years, resident of merta, district Nagaur (Raj.)

2. Paras Kanwar w/o Srichand Dosi Oswal, aged about 87 years, resident of merta, district Nagaur (Raj.)

3. Anil Kumar s/o Karan Singh Gehlot Mali, aged about 56 years, resident of merta, district Nagaur (Raj.)

4. Mohammed Salim s/o Abdul Ajij Musalman, aged about 46 years, resident of merta, district Nagaur (Raj.)

5. Mohammed Iqbal s/o Mohammed Ishak Chhipa, aged about 54 years, resident of merta, district Nagaur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Purohit For Respondent(s) : None

(2 of 3) [CW-3084/2016]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

08/04/2022

The cases are listed on the applications (Inward No. 1/22)

preferred by the petitioner for extension of the interim order

granted by this Court on 18.03.2016.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the cases are being heard and decided finally at this stage.

Since both these writ petitions arise out of a common order

dated 03.02.2016 passed by learned trial court on the two

separate applications preferred by the respondent-plaintiffs,

therefore, the present writ petitions are also decided by this

common judgment.

The first application was preferred for leading the evidence in

support of a new issue framed before the trial court and the

second application was for taking certain documents on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court

while allowing the applications preferred by the plaintiff-

respondents committed an error vide its order dated 03.02.2016.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner before this court is that the two applications preferred

by the plaintiff-respondents before the trial court were at a

belated stage and, therefore, they should not have been

entertained.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the impugned order dated 03.02.2016.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the order dated

03.02.2016 passed by the trial court is just and proper as the

applications preferred by the plaintiff-respondents were rightly

(3 of 3) [CW-3084/2016]

allowed on account of the fact that a new issue was framed by the

trial court. Further, the plaintiff had preferred an application for

bringing certain documents on record, the same was also rightly

allowed in view of the fact of framing of a new issue. Learned trial

court, therefore, correctly adjudicated the applications by allowing

them vide order dated 03.02.2016.

There is no delay in filing those two applications preferred by

the plaintiff-respondents as the suit was dismissed for

non-prosecution and since, the suit was restored at its original

place, learned trial court had given liberty to the plaintiff-

respondents for leading the evidence and, therefore, in these

circumstances, the applications preferred by the plaintiff-

respondents were allowed.

In view of the above, the order dated 03.02.2016 passed by

the trial court does not require any interference by this Court and,

therefore, the same is upheld. The writ petitions are bereft of

merit, therefore, the same are dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

25-26-payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)