Allowed

Smt. Vina Bhatia (Expired During the Pendency of the Suit) W/O Shri Ramesh Chand Bhatia v. Kuberchand Hirachand Shah S/O Shri Hirachand Shah

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2025CW/17773/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging closure of cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses. The High Court found delay was attributable to the defendant, not the plaintiff, and granted one last opportunity to produce two witnesses on payment of Rs.10,000 cost to the defendant, allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

One last opportunity to petitioner to produce two remaining witnesses for cross-examination at cost of Rs.10,000 payable to respondents; petition allowed.

Smt. Vina Bhatia (Expired During the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:49639]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17773/2025

¶4

Smt. Vina Bhatia (Expired During The Pendency Of The Suit) W/o Shri Ramesh Chand Bhatia, R/o Plot No. 109, Taneja Block, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Her Legal Heirs -

¶5

1/1. Sanchit Bhatia S/o Ramesh Chand Bhatia, W/o Smt. Vina Bhatia, (Deceased), Aged About 35 Years, R/o Plot No. 109, Taneja Block, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan),

¶6

1/2. Ankit Bhatia S/o Ramesh Chand Bhatia, W/o Smt. Vina Bhatia, (Deceased), Aged About 35 Years, R/o Plot No. 109, Taneja Block, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan),

¶7

---Plaintiffs-Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Kuberchand Hirachand Shah S/o Shri Hirachand Shah, R/o Plot No. 7, Devi Compound, Dhuleshwar Garden, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Office- M/s Rajesh Motor Private Limited, A-1 (Ak) Agra Road Transport Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 1/A M/s Rajesh Coach Builders, Through Partner Reva Chintamani Shah And Smt. Ujjawala K. Shah, Address M/s Rajesh Coach Builders, A-1, Agra Road, Transport Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶10

---Defendant-Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Ambika
For Respondent(s)	:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

06/12/2025

¶15

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 19.08.2025, whereby, the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses have been closed on the ground of nonappearance of the witnesses.

[2025:RJ-JP:49639]

[CW-17773/2025]

(2 of 3)

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year, 2018 the affidavits of all three witnesses Sanchit Bhatia, Ankit Bhatia and Ramesh were submitted before the Court. All the said witnesses were present on 28.11.2018 for crossexamination; however, the defendant failed to cross-examine them. Consequently, the right of the defendant to cross-examine was closed. Subsequently, an application was filed by the defendant for re-opening of the cross-examination, which was allowed on 12.07.2019.

¶20

It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter, the matter was pending in different applications, and lastly, on 12.05.2025, the application filed by the defendant-respondent under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of CPC was allowed, and the matter was fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses on 23.05.2025. However, due to unavoidable circumstances, the plaintiff’s witnesses could not be produced on the said date. The Court without giving time, proceeded to close the plaintiff’s evidence. Thereafter, an application was filed, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 19.08.2025.

¶21

Heard counsel for the petitioner. 5. This Court considered the material as well as the entire order-sheets on record. From the perusal of the order-sheets, it is reflected that it was the defendant, who had delayed the matter by filing applications and no fault can be attributed to the plaintiff for not producing his witnesses for cross-examination. If the cross-examination is not permitted, the examination-in-chief of the witnesses will not be considered by the learned trial Court and the trial will be rendered futile.

[2025:RJ-JP:49639]

[CW-17773/2025]

(3 of 3)

Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it proper to give one last opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to produce two remaining witnesses for cross-examination on a date at the cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the defendantsrespondents.

¶26

If the respondents are aggrieved by this order in any manner then, they may approach this Court by way of filing an application for recalling.

¶27

For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed. One last opportunity is granted at the cost of Rs.10,000/to be paid to the defendant by the petitioner to produce his two remaining witnesses for cross-examination.

¶28

With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶29

All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶30

(BIPIN GUPTA),J

¶31

Sudha/07

Smt. Vina Bhatia (Expired During the Pendency of the Suit) W/O Shri Ramesh Chand Bhatia v. Kuberchand Hirachand Shah S/O Shri Hirachand Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vina Bhatia (Expired During the Pendency of the Suit) W/O Shri Ramesh Chand Bhatia v. Kuberchand Hirachand Shah S/O Shri Hirachand Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Space 4 Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Vs District Collector (Sikar)

M/S Jain Builders Vs Union of India through General Manager, North - Western Railway

M/S Hari Prakash Sharma Vs Union of India

Samda Ram Son of Shri Sujya Vs Rangnath Maheshwari Son of Shri Hariprasad Maheshwari

Abdul Kayyum S/O Shri Abdul Hakim Vs Smt. Jainab B Wife of Aslamuddin

Mahendra Singh Kama Son of Late Shri Shiv Singh Kama Vs Smt. Neelam Harpalani Wife of Shri Tulsidas Harpalani