Rajkumar Khedwal S/O Late Shri Shankarlal Vs Shri Surendra Kumar Khedwal Son of Late Shri Shankarlal Ji

[2025:RJ-JP:390]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14227/2024

Rajkumar Khedwal S/o Late Shri Shankarlal, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Village Gangiyasar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Surendra Kumar Khedwal Son Of Late Shri Shankarlal Ji, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Village Gangiyasar, Tehsil District Jhunjhunu Presently Residing At 92-A, Narendra Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Yashwardhan Tolani, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶11

Order

¶12

03/01/2025

¶13

This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitionerdefendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jhunjhunu in civil suit No.29/2012 (07/2024) whereby the said court has dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent-plaintiff (for short ’the plaintiff’) filed a suit for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction in which defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC before the trial court for taking the Expert's report on record but trial court vide its order dated 31.07.2024

[2025:RJ-JP:390]

[CW-14227/2024]

(2 of 3)

dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that defendant got examined the disputed signature from Dr. T.S. Kapoor, documents expert, who prepared his report on 26.03.2012 and opined that signature of the defendant was forged one. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant on the ground that defendant sought to file the said report after a lapse of 12 years. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that delay in filing the report is not fatal and it could be compensated by cost. So, order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the trial court be set aside and report filed by the defendant be taken on record.

¶19

Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma and Ors. Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.4096/2022 (@ SLP(C) No.7452 of 2022) decided on 17.05.2022.

¶20

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that defendant had filed written statement before the trial court on 22.05.2012 and report dated 26.03.2012 sought to be taken on record by the defendant is prior to the filing of the written statement and after filing the written statement issues have been framed and evidence of the plaintiff has been completed and the matter is presently pending in defence evidence. So, defendant had not shown any bona fide reason for filing the report at such belated stage. So, trial court rightly dismissed the application filed

[2025:RJ-JP:390]

[CW-14227/2024]

(3 of 3)

by the defendant. So, the present civil writ petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶26

It is an admitted position that defendant had filed his written statement on 22.05.2012. As per the Expert's report, the same was prepared on 26.03.2012, i.e. prior to filing of the written statement. The defendant had not shown any bona fide cause for filing the report at such belated stage. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC. So, the present civil writ petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

¶27

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of.

¶28

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶29

AVINASH GULERIA /105

Rajkumar Khedwal S/O Late Shri Shankarlal v. Shri Surendra Kumar Khedwal Son of Late Shri Shankarlal Ji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Khedwal S/O Late Shri Shankarlal v. Shri Surendra Kumar Khedwal Son of Late Shri Shankarlal Ji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Gour S/O Late Shri Sitaram Sharma, Vs Shri Vaibhav Galriya

Dr. Prakash Chhipa Son of Shri Ramesh Chandra Chhipa, Vs State of Rajasthan

Buddhi Prakash Sharma S/O Late Shri Kalyan Prasad Sharma Vs Nagar Nigam, Jaipur

Ramesh Kumar Bhardwa Vs Addi Districrt Judge and Ors.

Ajeet Kumar Buchasiya S/O Jagannath Buchasiya Vs Smt. Gyarsi Devi W/O Jitendra Kumar Sharma

Sukh Chand and Ors. Vs Smt Pan Bai and Ors.