[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Maheshwari Samaj vs Lrs Of Pradeep Kumar Rathi ... 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 10:30:41 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 10:30:41 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)

[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)

[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)

[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.