[2026:RJ-JP:6811] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4361/2025 Sunil S/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Dagdi, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Thikana Vrindavan, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer Road, Beawar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Defendant-Petitioner Versus 1 Shri Rajendra Singh S/o Late Shri Govind Singh Gehlot, Resident Of Alag Sagar Kuan, Mal Godam Gali, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 2 Shri Suwalal S/o Late Shri Manaji Dagdi, Resident Of Surajpole Fate, Maliyan Gali No. 2, Beawar, Rajasthan. (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs And Successors. 2/1 Shri Omprakash S/o Late Shri Suwalal Dagdi, Resident Of Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer Road, Beawar, Rajasthan. (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs And Successors. 2/1/1 Shri Suresh Kumar S/o Late Shri Omprakash Dagdi, (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs And Successors. 2/1/1/1 Smt. Sudha, W/o Late Shri Suresh Dagdi 2/1/1/2 Shri Garvit, S/o Late Suresh Dagdi 2/1/1/3 Ms. Tanvi, D/o Late Shri Suresh Dagdi 2/1/1/4 Ms. Isha, D/o Late Shri Suresh Dagdi 2/1/2 Shri Puran Kumar, S/o Late Shri Omprakash Dagdi 2/1/3 Shri Mukesh Kumar, S/o Late Shri Omprakash Dagdi 2/1/4 Smt. Rukmani Devi, W/o Late Shri Omprakash Dagdi 2/1/5 Smt. Minakshi Singodiya W/o Shri Padam Kumar And D/o Late Shri Omprakash Dagdi, All Resident Of 1/196, Janakpuri, Adarsh Nagar, Gali No. 1, Ajmer Road, Beawar, Rajasthan. 2/2 Smt. Jashoda, D/o Late Shri Suwalal Dagdi And W/o Shri Sobhag Singh Parihar 2/3 Smt. Kaushalya, D/o Late Shri Suwalal Dagdi And W/o Late Shri Shyamlal Chauhan 2/4 Smt. Rajkumari @ Smt. Raju, D/o Late Shri Suwalal Dagdi And W/o Shri Mangalchand Gehlot [2026:RJ-JP:6811] (2 of 5) [CW-4361/2025] 2/5 Smt. Suman, D/o Late Shri Suwalal Dagdi And W/o Shri Ramkumar Sankhla 2/6 Shri Sheshkaran, S/o Late Shri Suwalal Dagdi 2/7 Shri Ramesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Suwalal Dagdi, From S. No. 1/2 To 1/7 All Resident Of S. R. Kutti Udyog, Out Side Of The Surajpole Gate, Near Ganpati Temple, Beawar, Rajasthan. 2/8 Shri Pramod Kumar S/o Late Shri Suwalal Dagdi, (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs And Successors. 2/8/1 Shri Balveer, S/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Dagdi 2/8/2 Shri Anil, S/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Dagdi 2/8/3 Smt. Sushila @ Shashi, D/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Dagdi And W/o Shri Manoj Chauhan 2/9 Smt. Manju D/o Late Shri Suwalal Dagdi, Resident Of Mayur Colony, Old Masuda Road, Beawar, Rajasthan. 3 State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 4 Sub-Registrar, Beawar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. 5 Inspector General, Registration And Stamp Department, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Defendants-Proforma Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Sharma for Ms. Rekha Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 12/02/2026 1. Heard on application No. 1/2025 as well as on writ petition. 2. This Court finds that the documents which are sought to be placed on record are not required or necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the present writ petition. 3. Hence, the application stands dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:6811] (3 of 5) [CW-4361/2025] 4. The present civil writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.01.2025, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 3, Beawar in Civil Suit No. 06/2018 (Old No. 89/2012), whereby, the application filed by the petitioner- defendant under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to cross- examine the plaintiff’s witnesses has been rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 10.11.2008 was filed by the plaintiff, namely Shri Rajendra Singh against Shri Suwalal and three other State Authorities. He submits that during the pendency of the suit, Shri Suwalal expired and his legal representatives, numbered as 1/1 to 1/9, were taken on record. He further submits that his father, namely; Shri Pramod Kumar, was taken on record as legal representative at Serial No. 1/8. Thereafter, upon the death of Pramod Kumar, the present petitioner was also impleaded as party No.1/8/2. He submits that after being impleaded as a party, he ought to have been granted the right to cross-examine the plaintiff. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Shri Pramod Kumar himself had filed a reply in the suit and after his death, when the petitioner was impleaded in his place, he filed an application seeking permission to file a separate reply, which was rejected by the learned trial Court and the said order was upheld. It is further contended that when the plaintiff’s evidence was completed, the petitioner was appearing and participating in the proceedings but did not cross-examine the plaintiff. He submits that subsequently, by way of an application, the petitioner [2026:RJ-JP:6811] (4 of 5) [CW-4361/2025] stated that he had not been properly advised earlier and, after obtaining proper legal advice, he has sought permission to cross- examine the plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that there is no provision in law permitting such prayer wherein once the plaintiff’s evidence has been closed, merely on the ground of change or improper advice of counsel, the party could be granted permission to call the witness for cross-examination. He further submits that there is no error in the impugned order, so as to warrant interference of this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. This Court finds that initially the suit was filed against Shri Suwalal. After his death, his legal representatives, numbered 1/1 to 1/9, were impleaded as parties. The father of the petitioner, Shri Pramod Kumar, who had filed a reply in the suit, was one of them. After his death, the present petitioner was impleaded in his place and he sought permission to file a separate reply, which was rejected by the learned trial Court. 10. This Court further finds that when the plaintiff’s examination was in process, the petitioner was participating in the proceedings and there was no embargo or impediment preventing him from cross-examining the plaintiff. Thus, after closure of the plaintiff’s evidence, merely on account of subsequent legal advice, permission to cross-examine the plaintiff cannot be granted. If [2026:RJ-JP:6811] (5 of 5) [CW-4361/2025] such practice is permitted, there would be no end to the proceedings and the trial would become an endless process. 11. This Court thus finds that no case is made out so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. With the above observations, the present civil writ petition stands disposed of. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/45