[2025:RJ-JP:41647] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15568/2025 Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Kishan Ji, aged about 40 Years, R/o Gurjarbas, Gautam Nagar, Ramganj, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Saddam Hussain S/o Sarfaraz Khan, R/o Gram Khanpura, Tehsil and District Ajmer. 2. Shri Kalu Ali S/o Nawab Ali, R/o D-158, Gram Dorayi, Tehsil and District Ajmer. (Died through Lrs) A. Shahbuddin S/o Late Kalu Ali, R/o Dorayi, HMT, Ajmer. B. Smt Gheesi W/o Late Kalu Ali, R/o Redha Basti Dorayi, Ajmer. C. Hasam Ali S/o Late Kalu Ali, R/o Gram Dorayi, Rural, Ajmer D. Bibi Jaan D/o Late Kalu Ali, R/o Redha Basti Dorayi, Ajmer E. Aladdin S/o Late Kalu Ali, R/o Redha Basti Dorayi, Ajmer F. Matiya W/o Ramjan D/o Late Kalu Ali, R/o Gowadhiya Khakha, Ajmer 3. Sub Registrar First, Jaipur Road, Ajmer. 4. Sub Registrar Second, Jaipur Road, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Adil For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 13/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge, No.1, Ajmer, whereby the application filed by defendant/ [2025:RJ-JP:41647] (2 of 3) [CW-15568/2025] respondent No.2 under Section 151 & 152 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for recalling the plaintiff(PW-1) has been allowed and the defendant/respondent No.2 has been granted an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff(PW-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below has seriously erred in allowing the application, while overlooking the conduct of the defendant/respondent No.2. He also submits that from the order-sheets of the case, it is reflected that from day one, the intention of the defendant/respondent No.2 was to delay the trial. Therefore, the application for recalling of the plaintiff ought not to have been allowed. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties. 4. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff was concluded on 24.01.2019 and at that point of time, ex-parte proceedings were in effect against the defendant/respondent No.2, therefore, defendant/respondent No.2 could not get the opportunity to cross- examine the plaintiff. 5. After setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, the defendant No.2 filed his written-statement which was taken on record vide order dated 03.11.2022. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the written-statement on 10.07.2024. 6. In that view of the matter, the allowing of the application filed by defendant No.2, for recalling the plaintiff and granting an opportunity, to defendant No.2 for cross-examination by the court below cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. [2025:RJ-JP:41647] (3 of 3) [CW-15568/2025] 7. In view of the above, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /16