Allowed

Aabid Ali S/O Nathu Mandori v. Mufid

Rajasthan HC9 Dec 2025CW/19316/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order dismissing the plaintiffs' application to recall a previous order. The High Court set aside the impugned order and granted the plaintiffs one opportunity to lead evidence on a single date, subject to the payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 03.11.2025 setting aside the evidence exclusion order was set aside. The petitioners were granted one opportunity to lead evidence.

Aabid Ali S/O Nathu Mandori Vs Mufid — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:49969]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19316/2025

¶4

Aabid Ali S/o Nathu Mandori, (Deceased): 1/1. Matin, W/o Aabid Ali, 1/2.Khalid, S/o Aabid Ali, 1/3. Idris, S/o Aabid Ali, 1/4. Abri, Aged About 19 Years, Son Of Aabid Ali 1/5. Hurbani, W/o Sethi, D/o Aabid Ali,

¶5

1/6. Heena W/o Ajju, D/o Aabid Ali,

¶6

All R/o Aliganj, Tehsil Gangapur City.

¶7

Abdul Hafij, S/o Jahur Mohammad,

¶8

Abdul Majid, S/o Abdul Ajij,

¶9

Amanat, W/o Late Abdul Hakim,

¶10

Phoolmohammad, S/o Abdul Ajij, 6. Farukh Ali, S/o Abdul Ajij, 7. Rasool Mohammad, S/o Abdul Ajij, 8. Shamsher S/o Abdul Ajij, All R/o Aliganj, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

¶11

----Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶12

Versus

¶13

1. Mufid, S/o Amin, 2. Hamid, S/o Amin, 3. Farid, S/o Amin, 4. Aashif, S/o Amin,

¶14

Nawab, S/o Ilahi,

¶15

Abdul Salam, S/o Ilahi, 7. Faiyaj, S/o Nathu,

¶16

Buniyad, S/o Nathu, 9. Rafiq, S/o Nathu, 10. Safimohammad, S/o Nathu, 11. Samin D/o Navibaks, (Deceased), 11/1. Sattar, S/o Unknown,

¶17

11.2/ Sharif @ Gothiya, Aged About 35 Years,

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:49969]

[CW-19316/2025]

11/3. Aarif, Aged About 28 Years,

¶22

11/4. Salman, Aged About 25 Years,

¶23

11/5. Shahrukh, Aged About 23 Years,

¶24

11/6. Rijwan, Aged About 21 Years,

¶25

11/7. Idris, Aged About 19 Years,

¶26

11/8. Shahnaj, Aged About 33 Years, Sons of Sattar,

¶27

11/9. Saniya, D/o Sattar, Aged About 16 Years, D/o Sattar, Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Sattar, R/o Aliganj, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).

¶28

…….Respondents/Defendants

¶29

1. Riyajuddin Son Of Nathu Mandori, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Aliganj, Tehsil Gangapur City (Deceased):

¶30

12/1. Hafij, Son Of Riyajuddin, 12/2. Rafiq, Son Of Riyajuddin, Both Sons of Riyajuddin,

¶31

12/3. Parveen, D/o Riyajuddin, W/o Mukhtyar,

¶32

12/4. Ilayachi Bano, D/o Riyajuddin, W/o Mukhtyar Ali,

¶33

12/5. Khairun, D/o Riyajuddin, W/o Saraj,

¶34

12/6. Aruna, D/o Riyajuddin, W/o Hajrat @ Pajya,

¶35

12/7. Aamna W/o Riyajuddin, All R/o Village Aliganj, Tehsil Gangapur City.

¶36

---Perfroma-Respondents/Defendants

¶37

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal
For Respondent(s)	:

¶38

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

¶39

Order

¶40

09/12/2025

¶41

The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 03.11.2025, whereby, the application filed by the plaintiffs for recalling the order dated 27.03.2025 has been dismissed.

[2025:RJ-JP:49969]

[CW-19316/2025]

(3 of 4)

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issues in the suit were framed on 05.12.2023. Thereafter, due to unavoidable circumstances, they could not produce their evidence. If the evidence is not permitted to be taken on record, the trial of the suit would be rendered futile, as the suit would remain unsupported by evidence. He therefore prays that one opportunity be granted to lead evidence so that all their witnesses may be brought on record. Learned counsel further submits that the defence evidence has also not been filed yet.

¶46

Considering the same, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one opportunity to lead evidence. 4. The order dated 03.11.2025, is hereby set aside. 5. The petitioners are granted one opportunity to produce all their evidence on a single date, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the defendants. All witnesses’ affidavits must be filed, and the witnesses shall be kept ready for cross-examination on the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court.

¶47

If the cost is not paid, or the affidavits are not filed, or the witnesses are not made available for cross-examination, this order shall not come into effect.

¶48

If the plaintiffs file all their witnesses' affidavits on a single date and produce all their witnesses for cross-examination on the same date, the learned Trial Court may, as per its convenience, grant further time to complete the cross-examination, as it deems reasonable.

¶49

If the defendants–respondents are aggrieved by this order in any manner, they may approach this Court by filing an application for recall.

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:49969]

[CW-19316/2025]

With the above observation, this writ petition stands

¶54

disposed of.

¶55

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

¶56

(BIPIN GUPTA),J

¶57

Sudha/13

Aabid Ali S/O Nathu Mandori v. Mufid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aabid Ali S/O Nathu Mandori v. Mufid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chand S/O Sh. Kaluram Meena Vs Batturam S/O Sh. Gokulram

Dilip Kumar Balig S/O Late Shri Prabhu Dayal, Vs Shri Jagdish Prasad Balig S/O Late Shri Prabhu Dayal

Jagdeep Sachdeva Son of Late Shri Chetan Das Sachdeva Vs Krishna Kumar Arora (Deceased) Son of Late Shri Deenanath Ji Arora

Anil Singhal Memorial Charitable Trust Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Chand Agarwal @ Suresh Mittal S/O Late Tirathram Agarwal Vs Uma S. Pandey W/O Shayam Sunder Pandey

Deepak Sain S/O. Shri Girraj Prasad Sain Vs Smt. Lajwanti Chakraborti W/O. Shri Nihalchand Chakraborti