[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganesha Ram vs Madan (2026:Rj-Jd:8747) on 17 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8747]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5851/2025
1. Ganesha Ram S/o Kharta Ram, Aged About 83 Years,
Resident Of Railway Station, Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. Dinesh S/o Ganesha Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Resident
Of Railway Station, Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur
(Raj.).
3. Dilip S/o Ganesha Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of
Railway Station, Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur
(Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Madan S/o Devi Lal Ji, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. Legal Representative Of Babu Lal, S/o Kharta Ram Ji
3. Chhau Devi W/o Babulal, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
4. Ganga Ram S/o Babulal, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
5. Kishanlal S/o Babulal, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
6. Chhaina Devi D/o Babulal, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
7. Leela Devi D/o Babulal, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
8. Guddi Devi D/o Babulal, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
9. Dhapu Devi D/o Babulal, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
10. Chhataki Devi D/o Babulal, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
11. Kiran Devi D/o Babulal, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
12. Shankar Lal S/o Kharta Ram Ji, Resident Of Railway
Station, Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
13. Pratap Ram S/o Kharta Ram Ji, Resident Of Railway
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 02:39:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:50:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8747] (2 of 4) [CW-5851/2025]
Station, Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
14. Legal Representative Of Ananda Ram, S/o Kharata Ram Ji
15. Meema Devi W/o Ananda Ram, Resident Of Railway
Station, Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
16. Bhanwar Lal S/o Ananda Ram, Resident Of Railway
Station, Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
17. Teela Ram S/o Ananda Ram, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
18. Mahendra S/o Ananda Ram, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
19. Geeta Devi D/o Ananda Ram, Resident Of Railway
Station, Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
20. Jaita Devi D/o Ananda Ram, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
21. Goma Devi D/o Ananda Ram, Resident Of Railway
Station, Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
22. Praveen S/o Pappa Ram, Resident Of Railway Station,
Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
23. The Gram Panchayat Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
17/02/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-
defendants challenging the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the
Additional Civil Judge No. 8, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Civil
Suit/NCV No. 126/2019 (Madan & Ors. vs. Ganesharam & Ors.),
whereby the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 preferred by the petitioners-defendants seeking
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 02:39:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8747] (3 of 4) [CW-5851/2025]
to consign the affidavits of certain witnesses of the respondents-
plaintiffs to Part-D of the record, has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that issues were
framed by the trial court on 17.09.2021 and the matter was fixed
for plaintiffs' evidence on 08.11.2021. Despite sufficient
opportunities, the plaintiffs failed to conclude their evidence and
ultimately the same was closed by the trial court. Thereafter, the
plaintiffs preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21778/2024 before
this Court, which was disposed of granting one last opportunity,
subject to payment of cost of Rs. 7,000/-, to lead their evidence.
It is contended that the said liberty was limited in nature and
did not permit the plaintiffs to introduce new witnesses. It is
further contended that after cross-examination of witness Madan,
the plaintiffs filed fresh affidavits of Babulal, Andharam, Pratapram
and Praveen, which were not earlier on record, and therefore, the
trial court ought to have consigned the same to Part-D.
According to learned counsel, permitting such affidavits
amounts to granting multiple opportunities contrary to the spirit of
the order passed by this Court earlier.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners and carefully examined the material
available on record.
5. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 21778/2024 reveals that in the interest of justice and
for deciding the matter on merits, one opportunity was granted to
the plaintiffs to lead their evidence, subject to payment of cost.
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 02:39:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8747] (4 of 4) [CW-5851/2025]
The order did not circumscribe the nature of evidence that could
be led, nor did it restrict the plaintiffs to examination of any
particular witness.
6. The expression "one last opportunity to lead evidence"
necessarily implies one effective opportunity to complete the
plaintiffs' evidence. It cannot be construed in a hyper-technical
manner so as to confine the plaintiffs to a single witness,
particularly when the purpose of granting such opportunity was to
enable adjudication of the dispute on merits.
7. The impugned order reflects that on the date fixed pursuant
to the order of this Court, the plaintiffs examined PW-1 and
simultaneously filed affidavits of PW-2 to PW-5. The trial court has
recorded a finding that such filing of affidavits was in compliance
with the order passed by this Court. The said finding does not
suffer from perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error.
8. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the writ
petition. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
9. Stay petition as well as all pending application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
23-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 02:39:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
