LRS OF DWARKAPRASAD Vs. LRS OF MISHRILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners herein have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dtd. 28/10/2025, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit No.345/2012, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Sec. 92 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short BSA, 2023 ahead) has been kept pending for its adjudication at the final stage of the suit.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several documents, more than 30 years old, were submitted by the petitioner on record and all those documents were allowed to be exhibited when evidence of the petitioner was recorded. Counsel submits that after closure of evidence of the defendant, an application was submitted under Sec. 92 of BSA, 2023 for passing appropriate orders with regard to presumption of documents that are 30 years old. Counsel submits that the Trial Court should have passed appropriate orders as to whether the presumption was taken or not. Counsel submits that unless appropriate orders are passed, the petitioner would not be in a position to come to a conclusion whether other material evidence is required to be produced on record for proving the abovementioned 30 years old documents. Hence, the order passed by the Court below is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments taken by the petitioner and submitted that the documents so relied upon by the petitioner have already been exhibited. The Trial Court would pass appropriate order on the aforesaid documents at the time of pronouncement of final judgment. Counsel submits that the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the order impugned which may require any interference by this Court and the instant writ petition is liable to be rejected.