[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Dwarkaprasad vs Lrs Of Mishrilal (2025:Rj-Jd:53934) on 15 December, 2025
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
[2025:RJ-JD:53934]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23477/2025
1. Lrs Of Dwarkaprasad, S/o Shri Mishrilal Ji Jindal
2. Shailendra Jindal S/o Late Sh. Dwarka Prasad, Aged
About 63 Years, R/o D/402, Jewel Of India P Hase 1, J.l.n.
Marg, Opp. Rajasthan Hospital, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Smt. Premlata Jindal W/o Late Sh. Dwarka Prasad, Aged
About 78 Years, R/o Jindal Bhawan, 260 Sojati Gate Link
Road, Jalori Bari, Jodhpur.
4. Smt. Manju Agarwal D/o Late Sh. Dwarka Prasad, W/o
Sarveshwar, Aged About 61 Years, R/o 23/24, Adarsh
Nagar, Ajmer Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh (Raj.).
5. Smt. Anju Gupta D/o Late Sh. Dwarka Prasad W/o Rakesh
Gupta, Aged About 59 Years, R/o E-502 Shre Sai Baba
Apartment, Sector-9, Rohini East, New Delhi-85
6. Smt. Sanju Gupta D/o Late Sh. Dwarka Prasad W/o
Rajesh Gupta, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Chaitanya Vihar,
Face-2, 100Ft Road, Vrindavan (Uttar Pradesh).
7. Smt. Ranju Gupta D/o Late Sh. Dwarka Prasad W/o
Jagdish Gupta, Aged About 54 Years, R/o G-2, Virast
Residency A-34, Swag Farm, Sundar Singh Bhandari,
Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
8. Smt. Kamlesh Gupta D/o Late Sh. Dwarka Prasad W/o
Satish Gupta, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 159, Janta
Enclave, Add Dungari Face 2, Ludhiana (Punjab).
9. Smt. Vimlesh Gupta D/o Late Sh. Dwarka Prasad W/o
Suvnesh Gupta, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 42 Residency
Garden, Stadium Gord, Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh).
Petitioners No. 1/2 To 1/8 Are Represented Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Shailendra Jindal S/o Late Sh.
Dwarka Prasad, Aged 63 Years, R/o D/402, Jewel Of India
Phase 1, J.l.n. Marg,. Opp. Rajasthan Hospital, Jaipur
(Raj), Who Is The Petitioner No. 1/1 Herein.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Lrs Of Mishrilal, S/o Late Sh. Ramnarayan Ji Jindal
2. Smt. Leela Devi W/o Sh. Omprakash Ji (Nivarwala)
Agarwal, R/o Sunaro Ki Ghati, Jodhpur.
(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 09:55:24 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53934] (2 of 4) [CW-23477/2025]
3. Smt. Devi W/o Sh. Mohanlal Ji Agarwal Goyal, R/o Ram
Minerals, Near Railway Station, Opposite Post Office,
Barmer.
4. Smt. Krishna Modi @ Kanta W/o Dr. Brijmohan Ji Modi
Agarwal, R/o Mohankunj, A-5, Shyamnagar, Jaipur.
5. Hariprasad S/o Late Sh. Mishrilal Ji Jindal, R/o Near Jalori
Bati, Opposite Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur.
6. Trilokprasad S/o Late Sh. Mishrilal Ji Jindal, R/o Near
Jalori Bati, Opposite Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Mehta
Mr. VD Gaur
Mr. Zubin Ahmed
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Narendra Thanvi
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
15/12/2025
1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners
herein have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order
dated 28.10.2025, passed by learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit
No.345/2012, by which the application submitted by the petitioner
under Section 92 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short
BSA, 2023 ahead) has been kept pending for its adjudication
at the final stage of the suit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several
documents, more than 30 years old, were submitted by the
petitioner on record and all those documents were allowed to be
exhibited when evidence of the petitioner was recorded.
(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 09:55:24 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53934] (3 of 4) [CW-23477/2025]
Counsel submits that after closure of evidence of the defendant,
an application was submitted under Section 92 of BSA, 2023 for
passing appropriate orders with regard to presumption of
documents that are 30 years old. Counsel submits that the Trial
Court should have passed appropriate orders as to whether the
presumption was taken or not. Counsel submits that unless
appropriate orders are passed, the petitioner would not be in a
position to come to a conclusion whether other material evidence
is required to be produced on record for proving the above-
mentioned 30 years old documents. Hence, the order passed by
the Court below is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the
arguments taken by the petitioner and submitted that the
documents so relied upon by the petitioner have already been
exhibited. The Trial Court would pass appropriate order on the
aforesaid documents at the time of pronouncement of final
judgment. Counsel submits that the Trial Court has not committed
any error in passing the order impugned which may require any
interference by this Court and the instant writ petition is liable to
be rejected.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the
submissions advanced and perused the material available on
record.
5. A perusal of the record indicates that a suit for partition was
filed wayback in the year 1999 by the plaintiff-petitioner. The suit
proceeded and evidence of both the sides were recorded. During
the course of evidence of plaintiff, several documents were
(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 09:55:24 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53934] (4 of 4) [CW-23477/2025]
produced on record and the same were exhibited, out of which,
some documents were 30 or more years old.
6. For the purpose of taking a presumption of these documents
in terms of Section 92 of BSA, 2023 an application has been
submitted. The said application filed by the petitioner has not
been dismissed, rather the same has been kept pending for
adjudication to be taken up at the final stage of hearing.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has
availed ample opportunities to say about the validity and
importance of the aforesaid documents which are either 30 years
or more than 30 years old. Whether the presumption is required
to be taken on those documents under Section 92 or not, is to be
determined by the Trial Court at the final stage of the suit.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, a mini-trial prior to
passing of the final judgment is not required to decide the pending
application submitted by the petitioner under Section 92 BSA,
2023. The Court below would pass appropriate order at the final
stage of the suit while deciding the application submitted by the
petitioner under Section 92 of BSA, 2023.
9. This Court finds no error in the order impugned which
warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the instant
petition is rejected.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
28-Sanjay/-
(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 09:55:24 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
