[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shokin Khan vs Aslam Khan (2026:Rj-Jd:18257) on 16 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:18257]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2946/2026
LRs of Shokin Khan S/o Farid Khan, Aged About 42 Years,
Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.
1/1. Praveen W/o Late Shokin Khan, age 44 years, R/o
Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
1/2. Khalid Husain S/o Late Shokin Khan, aged 32 years, R/o
Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
1/3. Firdos D/o Late Shokin Khan, aged 35 years, R/o
Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
1/4. Salma D/o Late Shokin Khan, aged 30 years, R/o
Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Aslam Khan S/o Bhadar Khan, Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar
District Hanumangarh.
2. Sub-Registrar, Sub- Registrar Office, Ramgarh Tehsil
Nohar District Hanumangarh.
3. Tehsildar Revenue, Sub- Tehsil Ramgarh, Tehsil Nohar
District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ganga Ram Bhari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Vishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
16/04/2026
1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner-
defendant assailing the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the
Additional District Judge No. 1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh,
whereby the petitioner's application filed under Order VIII Rule
1A(3) and Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. has
been rejected.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 10:21:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18257] (2 of 6) [CW-2946/2026]
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial
court committed an error in rejecting the application under Order
VIII Rule 1A(3) and Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It is urged that the
finding regarding alleged dissimilarity in the plaintiff's signatures/
handwriting travels beyond the pleadings, as no such plea was
taken in the application or the written statement. It is further
argued that the trial court adopted an inconsistent approach by
observing that the document pertains to the agreement in
question, yet treating it as suspicious without assigning cogent
reasons, thereby rendering the impugned order arbitrary and
unsustainable.
4. It is also contended that rejection of the application on the
ground that no questions relating to handwriting were put during
cross-examination is erroneous. Learned counsel further submits
that the petitioner, being illiterate and unaware of legal intricacies,
he produced the document only on 16.01.2026 upon realizing its
relevance. The document, it is submitted, is essential for proper
adjudication and ought to have been taken on record.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the document
emanates from prior transactions between the parties concerning
a poultry farm and settlement of accounts, and reflects
subsequent understanding between them. Its exclusion, it is
argued, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is also
contended that Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC enables the Court to
grant leave for production of documents at a later stage and
warrants a liberal approach.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 10:21:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18257] (3 of 6) [CW-2946/2026]
6. In support of the above submissions, reliance has been
placed on Nawal (Smt.) & Ors. vs. Khem Ji reported in
2023(1) CJ(Civ.) (Raj.) 248 and Anil Kumar Purohit vs.
Ashok Kumar Purohit & Ors. reported in 2024(4) CJ(Civ.)
(Raj.) 2003.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-plaintiff
supports the impugned order and submits that the allegations
regarding poultry farm dealings, monetary transactions and
handwritten accounts are wholly false. The document in question
is stated to be fabricated, irrelevant and never disclosed in earlier
pleadings or evidence. It is argued that the application is a belated
attempt to introduce a false defence and has rightly been rejected
by the trial court.
8. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on
Krishan Lal vs. Ramrakh (LR's) & Anr. reported in 2023 (2)
DNJ (Raj.) 748 and the decision of a coordinate Bench of this
Court at Jaipur Bench in Shanti Devi vs. Ghanshyam & Ors.
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6933/2022) decided on
11.05.2022.
9. This Court has considered the rival submissions, perused the
material available on record and examined the judgments cited at
the Bar.
10. It is not in dispute that the trial had substantially progressed
and the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses had already
been concluded. At such an advanced stage, the petitioner sought
to introduce a new document allegedly containing accounts and
simultaneously sought amendment of the written statement.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 10:21:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18257] (4 of 6) [CW-2946/2026]
Admittedly, the document was neither filed along with the written
statement nor even referred to in the pleadings or during the
course of evidence. No plausible explanation has been offered for
such omission except a vague plea of ignorance.
11. The plea that the petitioner is illiterate and, therefore, could
not produce the document earlier, does not merit acceptance in
the facts of the present case. The record reflects that the
petitioner was duly represented by counsel and participated in the
proceedings. Mere belated production of a document, without
satisfactory explanation, cannot justify reopening of the case,
particularly when it seeks to alter the nature of defence.
12. The trial court has rightly noted that no suggestion regarding
the alleged handwriting or existence of such document was put to
the plaintiff or his witnesses during cross-examination. Allowing
such a document at this stage would seriously prejudice the
plaintiff and necessitate reopening of the trial.
13. The alleged inconsistency in the trial court's reasoning is also
without substance. The observation that the document "appears to
relate" to the agreement does not imply acceptance of its
genuineness. The trial court has merely undertaken a prima facie
assessment and, for valid reasons, found the document to be
suspicious and unworthy of acceptance at a belated stage.
14. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India in respect of discretionary orders passed by
the trial court is extremely limited. The High Court does not act as
a court of appeal, interference is warranted only where the order
suffers from patent illegality, perversity or manifest miscarriage of
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 10:21:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18257] (5 of 6) [CW-2946/2026]
justice. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to
demonstrate any such jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the
impugned order.
15. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are
distinguishable on facts. In Nawal (Smt.) (supra) and Anil Kumar
Purohit (supra), the Courts permitted amendment or production of
documents where sufficient cause was shown and the proceedings
had not reached an advanced stage, nor was there a complete
absence of foundational pleadings. In the present case, however,
the document was never pleaded, no foundation was laid in
evidence, and the application has been filed after closure of the
plaintiff's evidence without any satisfactory explanation.
16. Conversely, the principles laid down in Krishan Lal (supra)
are directly applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it
has been categorically held that amendments which seek to
introduce an entirely new case or changes the subject matter of
the suit ought not to be permitted. Similarly, in Shanti Devi
(supra), it has been observed that an amendment cannot be
allowed where the facts sought to be introduced were neither
pleaded in the written statement nor brought on record at any
stage of the proceedings, including during the course of evidence,
and where no plausible or satisfactory explanation for the delay
has been furnished.
17. In view of the above, this Court finds that impugned order
does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional
infirmity warranting interference.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 10:21:34 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18257] (6 of 6) [CW-2946/2026]
18. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is
dismissed.
19. The stay petition as well as all pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
213-Inder
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 10:21:34 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
