Rishi Jain Son of Late Shri Santosh Kumar Jain Vs Vinod Kumar Agarwal Son of Late Shri Matadin Agarwal — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rishi Jain Son of Late Shri Santosh Kumar Jain Vs Vinod Kumar Agarwal Son of Late Shri Matadin Agarwal — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the Trial Court to decline unnecessary deferral requests, to bind the defendants to complete their cross-examination within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, and to endeavour expeditious disposal of the pending suit with due opportunity of hearing; all pending applications also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the Senior Civil Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa to fix a proper timeline with an upper limit (prayed as one month) for the respondents-defendants to complete their cross-examination of the plaintiff, so as to curb the delay in the long-pending eviction suit.

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with the expectation that the Trial Court will not entertain any unnecessary requests made by either side to defer the matter from one date to another.

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court is to make all possible endeavours to bound the defendants to complete their cross-examination within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Key takeaways

The Trial Court is to make endeavours to decide the pending suit expeditiously, as early as possible, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both sides.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Single Bench (Anoop Kumar Dhand, J): On a limited-prayer writ petition by the plaintiff in an eviction suit pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Bandikui since 2012 — where examination-in-chief affidavits had been filed in 2019 and the defendants' cross-examination, begun on 20.08.2024, had remained unconcluded for over 18 months amid repeated deferrals — the Court disposed of the petition directing the Trial Court not to entertain unnecessary requests by either side to defer the matter, to make all possible endeavours to bound the defendants to complete their cross-examination within two months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, and to endeavour to decide the pending suit expeditiously after providing due opportunity of hearing to both sides and recording the evidence of both sides in accordance with law. All pending applications stood disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18587/2025

Rishi Jain Son Of Late Shri Santosh Kumar Jain, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Jain Bungalow, Basawa Road, Tiraha Station Road, Opposite Municipality, Bandikui, District Dausa.

----Petitioner

Versus

Vinod Kumar Agarwal Son Of Late Shri Matadin Agarwal, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 12, Maharana Pratap Colony, Behind Police Station, Bandikui, District Dausa.

Uma Shankar Agarwal Son Of Late Shri Matadin Agarwal, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 12, Near Old Post Office Premises, Behind Police Station, Bandikui, District Dausa.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

16/01/2026

With a limited prayer, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short “plaintiff”) seeking issuance of directions to the Senior Civil Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa to fix a proper timeline with an upper limit, allowing the respondents-defendants (for short “defendants”) to complete their cross-examination within the stipulated time, i.e., one month. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that a suit for eviction of the defendants was submitted by the plaintiff before the court below way-back in the year 2012, i.e., more than 13 years back and till date the suit is proceeding in snail’s pace,

[CW-18587/2025]

(2 of 3)

hence, under these circumstances, the plaintiff approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6606/2023 seeking directions to the Court below to decide the pending suit expeditiously. Learned counsel submits that affidavits with regard to examination-in-chief were submitted by the plaintiff way-back in the year 2019 and after passing of five years of the same, the cross-examination has been started w.e.f. 20.08.2024 and more than 18 months have passed, however, till date the crossexamination has not been completed by the defendants and the case is being deferred from one date to another, which is causing unnecessary delay in disposal of the suit. Hence, under these circumstances, appropriate directions be issued, as sought for, in the instant petition.

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the plaintiff and considering the fact that a suit for eviction is lying pending before the Trial Court since last more than 13 years and also looking to the fact that the affidavit with regard to examination-in-chief was submitted by the plaintiff way-back in the year 2019, i.e., more than six years back and the case is proceeding at the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiff by the defendants since August, 2024 and more than 18 months have passed thereafter.

In the fitness of the facts and overall circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition with the expectation from the Trial Court not to entertain any unnecessary requests made by either side to defer

[CW-18587/2025]

(3 of 3)

the matter from one date to another and make all possible endeavours to bound the defendants to complete their crossexamination within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and further make endeavours to decide the pending suit expeditiously, as early as possible, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the sides and after recording the evidence of both the sides in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Karan/1