[2025:RJ-JP:4074] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1411/2025 Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Jhammanlal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Kaswa Sewar, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. ----Plaintiff-Petitioner Versus 1. Kaluaram S/o Late Shri Premchand, R/o Kaswa Sewar, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. 2. Smt Sabo W/o Shri Gopal, R/o Kaswa Sewar, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 29/01/2025 1. Petitioner-plaintiff has preferred instant Civil Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the interlocutory order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Civil Suit No.7/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bharatpur, permitting cross- examination of defendant No.1-Kalua Ram by defendant No.2- Smt. Sabo. 2. Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 3. This is a civil suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against respondent-defendant No.1-Kalua Ram; The suit property has been allegedly purchased by Smt. Sabo through registered sale deed from respondent-defendant No.1 and she has also been impleaded as party-defendant in the present suit. It appears that defendant No.1, initially filed written [2025:RJ-JP:4074] (2 of 2) [CW-1411/2025] statement contesting the civil suit, however, during course of evidence, he admitted to have entered into an agreement to sale in favour of plaintiff and has denied execution of the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. In that eventuality, the respondent-defendant No.2, claiming herself to be bona fide purchaser for value without notice, claimed a right to cross-examine defendant No.1, who has virtually led evidence against her. 4. The trial Court, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances and the change of stand of defendant No.1 contrary to the interest of defendant No.2, who claims her rights on the property on the basis of sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in her favour, permitted defendant No.2 to cross-examine defendant No.1 vide impugned order. 5. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not find any illegality, jurisdictional error in the order impugned nor the order impugned has been passed contrary to the parameters of law nor lead to miscarriage of justice. It is to be noted that plaintiff-petitioner has already cross-examined defendant No.1. 6. In view of above, instant writ petition is devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed. 7. All other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J SOURAV /59