[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
General Public Of Village Ghatva vs Gram Panchayat Ghatva ... on 16 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8504]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3336/2026
General Public Of Village Ghatva, Through-
1. Shiv Bhagwan S/o Late Sita Ram, Aged 70 Years,
2. Rughnath Singh S/o Shri Giga Ram, Aged 40 Years,
3. Malu Ram S/o Shri Gulla Ram, Aged 68 Years,
All Are Residents Of Ghatva, Tehsil Navan District Didwana-
Kuchaman.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Gram Panchayat Ghatva, Through Sarpanch Gram
Panchayat Ghatva, Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City,
Tehsil Navan District Didwana-Kuchaman.
2. Bhanwar Lal S/o Pura Ram, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat
Ghatva, Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City, Tehsil Navan
District Didwana-Kuchaman.
3. Mahavir Prasad S/o Ghasiram, Wx-Sarpanch, Gram
Panchayat Ghatva, Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman City,
Tehsil Kuchaman City District Didwana-Kuchaman.
4. Suresh Kumar Misra S/o Mahavir Prasad, Ex-Sarpanch,
Gram Panchayat Ghatva, Panchayat Samiti Kuchaman
City, Tehsil Kuchaman City District Didwana-Kuchaman.
5. Mohanla S/o Ramnilas, Through Lrs-
5/1. Sita Devi D/o Mohanla, Resident Of Dhatva, Tehsil
Kuchaman City, At Present Near Dhaka Orthopedic
Hospital, Near Devipura Balaji, Sikar Road, Tehsil And
District Sikar.
5/2. Ridhi Devi D/o Mohanla, Resident Of Dhatva, Tehsil
Kuchaman City, At Present Near Dhaka Orthopedic
Hospital, Near Devipura Balaji, Sikar Road, Tehsil And
District Sikar.
5/3. Indra D/o Mohanla, Resident Of Dhatva, Tehsil Kuchaman
City, At Present Near Dhaka Orthopedic Hospital, Near
Devipura Balaji, Sikar Road, Tehsil And District Sikar.
6. Bajrang Lal S/o Mohan Lal, Resident Of Ghatva, At
Present R/o Near Dhaka Orthopedic Hospital, Near
Devipura Balaji, Sikar Road, Tehsil And Dist. Sikar.
7. Aditya Agarwal S/o Gajanand Agarwal, Resident Of
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:59:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:07:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8504] (2 of 4) [CW-3336/2026]
Ghatva, At Present R/o Near Dhaka Orthopedic Hospital,
Near Devipura Balaji, Sikar Road, Tehsil And Dist. Sikar.
8. Shakuntla Devi W/o Gajanand, Resident Of Ghatva, At
Present R/o Near Dhaka Orthopedic Hospital, Near
Devipura Balaji, Sikar Road, Tehsil And Dist. Sikar.
9. Sub Registrar, Tehsil Office Navan City, Tehsil Navan
District Didwana-Kuchaman.
10. Suresh Kumar S/o Gordhan Lal, Resident Of Ghatva Tehsil
Navan District Didwana-Kuchaman.
11. Inder Singh S/o Bahadur Singh, Resident Of Ghatva Tehsil
Navan District Didwana-Kuchaman.
12. Ganpat Ram S/o Ramuram, Resident Of Ghatva Tehsil
Navan District Didwana-Kuchaman.
13. Amit Kumar S/o Mohan Lal, Resident Of Ghatva Tehsil
Navan District Didwana-Kuchaman.
14. Sangram Singh S/o Sardar Singh, Resident Of Ghatva
Tehsil Navan District Didwana-Kuchaman.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. GR Bhari.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
16/02/2026
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioners challenging the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Kuchaman City, District Deedwana-
Kuchaman, in Civil Suit No. 103/2023 (CIS No. 103/2023),
whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Order
11 Rule 12 & 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:59:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8504] (3 of 4) [CW-3336/2026]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned
trial court has committed a patent and serious error, apparent on
the face of the record, in rejecting the application filed under
Order XI Rules 12 and 14 of C.P.C. It is contended that learned
trial court wrongly observed that certified copies of the notices
could have been obtained from the concerned Government offices.
It is submitted that the petitioners had in fact approached the
Gram Panchayat as well as the office of the Sub-Registrar, but
they denied having copies of the said notices. This crucial and
material aspect has not been considered by the learned trial court
while passing the impugned order.
4. It is further submitted that the learned trial court failed to
assign proper, cogent and reasoned findings while passing the
order impugned and rejected the application solely on the ground
that no document was placed on record to show that an attempt
was made to obtain certified copies.
5. It is contended that documents sought to be summoned are
relevant, material and necessary for effective adjudication of the
suit. However, the learned trial court dismissed the application in a
routine and mechanical manner.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel and perused the material available on record.
7. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that copies of the
notices along with postal receipts and acknowledgments issued to
the Gram Panchayat and the Sub-Registrar are already available
on the record of the case. The documents sought to be summoned
are stated to be in the custody of public authorities. In such a
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:59:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8504] (4 of 4) [CW-3336/2026]
situation, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioners was
to apply for certified copies in accordance with the prescribed
procedure. However, no document has been placed on record to
demonstrate that any formal application was submitted seeking
certified copies or that the same was refused by the concerned
authorities. In the absence of any material substantiating such
efforts, the learned trial court was justified in declining the request
to summon the original records.
8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality,
perversity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned
trial court.
9. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit stands
dismissed.
10. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
67-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 03:59:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
