[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pramila Jain vs Oswal Singh Sabha (2026:Rj-Jd:3143) on 19 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:3143]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 97/2026
Pramila Jain W/o Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 69 Years,
Resident Of Quarter No. 5, Bheru Baag Ke Aage, Jalori Gate Ke
Bahar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Oswal Singh Sabha, Through Secretary Address Sardar
Senior Secondary School, Jalori Gate Ke Bahar, Brahm
Baag Se Bheru Baag Road, Jodhpur.
2. Mahendra Kumar S/o Rajbahadur, Resident Of Quarter
No. 5, Bheru Baag Ke Aage, Jalori Gate Ke Bahar,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Mohan Vyas.
Mr. Kamal Arya.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Chopra.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
19/01/2026
1. By way of the present writ petition, the order dated
16.12.2025 has been challenged, whereby the application filed by
petitioner for taking certified copies of the documents on record
were rejected on the ground that the provisions of Order VII Rule
14 are not applicable in the execution proceedings. Learned
counsel for the petitioner argued that although the provisions
were wrongly mentioned, the documents in question are relevant
for deciding the objection before the Executing Court and the
photocopies of the same were already filed and after obtaining of
the certified copies, the same were sought to be taken on record.
(Uploaded on 19/01/2026 at 04:47:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3143] (2 of 3) [CW-97/2026]
2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents apprise this
Court that as a matter of fact, the execution proceedings are in
relation to the judgment and decree passed by the competent
Court under the Rent Control Act, 1950, wherein the eviction of
the defendant/tenant was ordered. Challenging the same, Regular
First Appeal was dismissed, and in the second appeal filed before
this Hon'ble Court, the defendant/tenant has given a specific
undertaking before this Court that the possession of the premises
in question will be handed over on or before 31.03.2024.
However, in order to frustrate the undertaking given before
this Court, the objection before the Executing Court as well as
present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the conduct of the petitioner is
contemptuous in nature and amounts to a gross abuse of due
process of law.
3. Be that as it may, after vehemently arguing for some time,
learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that he has no
objection if the certified copies of the documents, photocopies of
which have already been filed, are ordered to be taken on record.
However, specific directions be given to the learned Executing
Court to decide the execution proceedings as expeditiously as
possible while restraining the petitioner-objector from taking
unnecessary adjournments in the execution proceedings.
4. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case and
submissions advanced before this Court, the present writ petition
stands allowed. The impugned order dated 16.12.2025 is set
aside.
(Uploaded on 19/01/2026 at 04:47:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3143] (3 of 3) [CW-97/2026]
5. The application preferred by the petitioner-objector for
taking the certified copies of the documents are allowed.
6. The Learned Executing Court is directed to take the said
certified copies on record and decide the objections as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month
from the date of passing of this order, without granting
unnecessarily adjournment to either of the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that petitioner
will cooperate in the proceedings and will not cause delay in the
manner.
8. Stay petition and all other application stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
184-sumer/-
(Uploaded on 19/01/2026 at 04:47:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
