1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 348 OF 2008 (Rajeshkumar Shantilal Jain and another .v. Shri Kamal Parasram Nagpal) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri A.J. Thakkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri N.G. Jetha, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 8th January, 2008 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No.601/2003, vide which the application filed by the present petitioners for summoning the officers of the bank from which the petitioners have taken loan, is rejected. A suit is filed by the present respondent for specific performance against the defendant Nos.1 to 10. The present petitioners have been added as co- defendants, they being subsequent purchasers of suit property from the respondent Nos.1 to 10. It is the contention of the present petitioners 2 that they have purchased the suit property after giving notice in the news papers and by obtaining loan from the bank. It is submitted that in the Written Statement so also in the affidavit, in lieu of examination-in-chief, a specific reference is made to the loan taken by the petitioners for purchase of the suit property. When a question was put in the cross-examination regarding the documents in support of the said claim, the application in question was filed for issuing summons to the bank officers. The same is rejected. Hence the present petition. Shri A.J. Thakkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the respondent if such an application is allowed. He submits that in the interest of justice, it was necessary that the bank officer was summoned for examination. Shri N.G. Jetha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the contrary, submits that the question as to whether the petitioners have purchased the suit property out of their own funds or the loan from the bank is not an issue before the learned trial Court. Admittedly, none of the parties has given the 3 list of witnesses. The present application has been filed by the petitioners only after the petitioner No.1 was put the question in cross-examination as to whether he has placed any documents on record to substantiate his claim regarding obtaining loan from the bank. In any case, the issue as to whether the petitioners have purchased the suit property out of their own funds or the loan taken from the bank, would not be relevant for determining the main issue in the suit i.e. whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance from the defendant Nos.1 to 10. In so far as the contention of the petitioners that they are bona fide purchasers is concerned, it is also submitted by the said petitioners/defendants that they have purchased the suit property after public notice was given and no one raised any objection. In that view of the matter, their interest stands safely protected. No interference is warranted in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.