Laxmi Swaroop Mathur S/O Jyoti Swaroop Mathur Vs Smt. Asha Malu W/O Shri Govind Das Malu

[2025:RJ-JP:2203]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3574/2024

Laxmi Swaroop Mathur S/o Jyoti Swaroop Mathur, R/o 102/10, Civil Lines, Ajmer-305001 Through His Power Of Attorey Shri Daljeet Singh Rao S/o Late Shri Mohan Singh Rao Aged 45 Years, R/o Kripal Nagar, Kalyanpuri Road, Gulab Bari, Ajmer (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Asha Malu W/o Shri Govind Das Malu, R/o B-104 Sonla Heights, Kia Motors Peeche Wali Gali, Chhani Zakat Naka, Vadodara-390002 Presently Residing At D-101, Presidential Tabli Hot Copper West, Mumbai.

¶8

Smt. Aarti Malu W/o Shri Kapil Kulkarni D/o Late Govind Das Malu, R/o B-107, Presidential Tabli Hot Copper West, Mumbai.

¶9

Sri Anuj Malu S/o Govind Das Malu, R/o 11445 Boulder Dive, Apartment No. 134 Lowell, Michigan, Usa Presently Residing At 4062, Orion Dive Apartment 1008, Carls Kisty Tx 78142.

¶10

Shri Pradeep Kumar Malu S/o Late Ambesh Chand Malu, At Present R/o B-Block Panchsheel Nagar, Makadwali Road, Ajmer.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Manvendra Singh, Adv. for
	Mr. Hridayesh Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Alok Chaturvedi, Adv.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶14

Order

¶15

16/01/2025

¶16

This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Ajmer in Civil Misc. Case No.73/2023 (CIS

[2025:RJ-JP:2203]

[CW-3574/2024]

(2 of 3)

No.328/2023), whereby review application filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 09.11.2023 has been dismissed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have filed a suit for cancellation of power of attorney dated 06.03.2014 as well as cancellation of agreement to sell dated 02.04.2014, mandatory injunction, possession and permanent injunction against the petitioner. During pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1, 2 and 3 read with Section 151 CPC for issuing summons to the witnesses-Taj Mohmmad, Lokesh Meena and Bhupendra Singh, but the trial court vide its order dated 13.10.2023 granted time in relatin to the witness-Bhupendra Singh and closed the evidence of rest of the witnesses-Taj Mohmmad and Lokesh Meena. After that, the petitioner filed an application under Order 16 Rule 10 (3) read with Section 151 CPC to summons both the witnesses- Taj Mohmmad and Lokesh Meena through bailable/arrest warrant but trial court dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 09.11.2023. After that, the petitioner filed a review application for reviewing the order dated 09.11.2023, but the trial court dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 12.02.2024. So, in the interest of justice, the impugned orders passed by the trial court be set-aside and one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner for producing the witnesses.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the same. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

[2025:RJ-JP:2203]

[CW-3574/2024]

(3 of 3)

It is an admitted position that trial court closed the evidence of the petitioner’s witnesses. So, in my considered opinion and in the interest of justice, I deem it just and proper to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to produce witnesses before the trial court subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner. Accordingly, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the trial Court is set-aside. Taking into consideration the fact that suit is pending consideration before the trial court since the year 2014 and more than 10 years have been passed, the trial court is directed to grant only an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the witnesses before the trial court, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner to the respondents on or before next date of hearing, failing which no opportunity shall be granted by the trial Court to the petitioner to produce the aforesaid witnesses.

¶27

However, trial court is directed to decide the suit, if pending with it, expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶28

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

¶29

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶30

Jatin /127

Laxmi Swaroop Mathur S/O Jyoti Swaroop Mathur v. Smt. Asha Malu W/O Shri Govind Das Malu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Swaroop Mathur S/O Jyoti Swaroop Mathur v. Smt. Asha Malu W/O Shri Govind Das Malu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Mohan S/O Prabhu Lal Vs Shiv Kumar

Abdul and Ors. Vs Badlu Ram and Ors.

Sanni Devi W/O Sitaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohanlal Sharma S/O Late Shri Omprakash Sharma Vs Executive Officer

Ramu Ram Vs Pappu Singh Ola and Ors.

Jaggi and Ors. Vs Ram Kishan and Ors.