Disposed¶36

Rajendra Kumar Son of Moolchand v. Nathu Son of Bhura

Rajasthan HC13 Apr 2026CW/2276/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Closure of plaintiff's evidence set aside; impounded insufficiently stamped sale agreement with Collector Stamps; document returned sufficiently stamped 21.04.2025 after review petition allowed; opportunity to lead affidavit evidence subject to Rs. 5,000 costs; specific performance suit; Special Judge Family Court Dausa; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; writ disposed.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 25.01.2024 of the Special Judge, Family Court, Dausa closing the plaintiff's evidence set aside; plaintiff petitioner permitted to lead evidence and produce witnesses limited to the affidavits already filed, subject to prior payment of Rs. 5,000/- costs to the respondent; thereafter the defendant entitled to lead his evidence. ¶36

Rajendra Kumar Son of Moolchand Vs Nathu Son of Bhura — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff-petitioner, whose evidence was closed on 25.01.2024 while the impounded sale agreement lay with the Collector Stamps, is entitled to a further opportunity to lead evidence now that the document was returned to the trial court sufficiently stamped on 21.04.2025.

¶27

Court's answer

When the evidence was closed, the impounded document had not been received back by the trial court, so the plaintiff was not in a position to lead any evidence in its absence.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The document was returned to the trial court sufficiently stamped only on 21.04.2025, i.e. after closure of evidence; accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to lead evidence.

¶33

Key takeaways

The order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Family Court, Dausa, closing the plaintiff's evidence, is set aside.ratio¶34
The opportunity to lead evidence is confined to examination and cross-examination on the affidavits already filed by the plaintiff petitioner.ratio¶35
The permission to lead evidence is conditional on the plaintiff petitioner first paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent; after the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant is also entitled to lead his evidence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2276/2024, Rajasthan HC, Jaipur Bench, Bipin Gupta, J., decided 13/04/2026) against order dt. 25.01.2024 of the Special Judge, Family Court, Dausa closing the plaintiff's evidence in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. Held: the agreement had been impounded and sent to the Collector Stamps; when evidence was closed the trial court had not received the document back, so the plaintiff could not lead evidence; the document was returned sufficiently stamped only on 21.04.2025 (review petition against the Collector Stamps' order having been allowed pursuant to an earlier direction of this Court, duty paid and certificate issued). The court set aside the closure order, granted the plaintiff opportunity to lead evidence confined to the affidavits already filed, conditioned on payment of Rs. 5,000/- costs to the respondent, after which the defendant would also be entitled to lead evidence. Petition disposed of.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:15396]

¶2

HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2276/2024

¶4

Rajendra Kumar Son Of Moolchand, Resident Of Village Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Nathu Son Of Bhura, Resident Of Village Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, Raj. (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives-

¶8

1/1 Smt. Dhanni Widow Of Shri Nathu, Resident Of Village Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, Raj.

¶9

1/2 Ramphool Son Of Shri Nathu, Resident Of Village Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, Raj.

¶10

2 State Of Rajasthan, Through Land Holder Tehsildar, Nangal Rajawatan

¶11

3 Sub Registrar, Lawan, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa.

¶12

4 Ramjilal Son Of Kajor, Resident Of Village Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, Raj.

¶13

5 Narbada Devi Wife Kajor, Resident Of Village Nangal Rajawatan, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa, Raj.

¶14

6 Bhagwati Devi Wife Of Badri Narayan, Resident Of Village Mithawas, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JP Goyal, Senior Adv. Ms. Jyoti Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. BR Rana Ms. Preeti Soni for Mr. Vidyadhar Gathala

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment/Order

¶18

13/04/2026

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.01.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, Family Court, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff was closed.

[2026:RJ-JP:15396]

[CW-2276/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff could not lead the evidence for the reasons that the agreement for the sale of which the specific performance was sought was sent by the Court after impounding it to the Collector Stamps.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, thereafter the collector stamp passed an order being aggrieved by the order the petitioner submitted a review petition. That review petition was not decided, therefore, he approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition. In that writ petition the direction was issued to decide the review petition by the Collector Stamps.

¶25

In pursuance of that the review petition was decided, which was allowed and thereafter the correct stamp duty was assessed by the collector stamps, which has been paid and certificate to the effect has been issued by the collector stamp on 21.04.2025 and by the same date letter the documents has been sent back to the learned trial Court.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delay in leading the evidence on account of that the documents itself were not available when the evidence was closed. The document has been sufficiently stamped by the collector stamp only after the evidence has been closed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be given opportunity to lead the evidence on the affidavits already filed by the plaintiff.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the plaintiff petitioner cannot take excuse of the delay in having document sufficiently stamped. He submits that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the plaintiff petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for further opportunity to lead the evidence.

[2026:RJ-JP:15396]

[CW-2276/2024]

(3 of 3)

Heard, perused the material available on record.

¶32

This Court finds that when the evidence was closed, the document which was impounded by the trial Court was not received by the trial Court and therefore plaintiff was not in a situation to lead any evidence in absence of the document.

¶33

This Court finds that the document has been sent to the trial Court after having been sufficiently stamped only on 21.04.2025, therefore, this Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to lead evidence as the document has been sufficiently stamped after the closure of the evidence.

¶34

In facts and circumstances of this Court, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order dated 25.01.2024, Passed by learned Special Judge, Family Court, Dausa, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff was closed.

¶35

The plaintiff petitioner is granted opportunity to lead evidence and produce all his witnesses for the purpose of examination as well as for cross examination only to extent of affidavits already filed by the plaintiff petitioner. The plaintiff petitioner shall also pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent. The said permission of evidence may be given by the trial Court only after the cost is being paid by the plaintiff petitioner. After the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant is also be entitled to lead his evidence.

¶36

With the above observations the writ petition stand disposed off.

¶37

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

¶38

(BIPIN GUPTA),J

¶39

RAVINDRA KUMAR /30

Rajendra Kumar Son of Moolchand v. Nathu Son of Bhura

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Son of Moolchand v. Nathu Son of Bhura

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Arun Gupta Vs Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited

Shrichand Yadav S/O Late Shri Prasadi Vs Managing Director

Jamila Bano Wife of Late Hameed Khan Vs Hanif Khan Son of Mohd. Ali Khan

Nathu Lal and Others Vs Radhey Shyam Ghodawat and Others

Chhail Bihari, Son of Shri Surendra Singh Vs Hemant Kumar, Son of Late Shri Virendra Kumar

Brij Vardhan Singh Son of Late Shri Adhiraj Singh Vs Bharat Choudhary Son of Shri Aasha Ram Choudhary