Sushila Ramu Yadav And Ors vs Smt. Sharubai Ramu Yadav Decd Thru ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2495 Bom

Dusane                                         1/3                     23 wp 12364.19.doc


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              WRIT PETITION NO.12364 OF 2019



     Sushila Ramu Yadav & Ors.                       ....   Petitioners

             Vs.

     Smt. Sharubai Ramu Yadav & Ors. ....                     Respondents


     Mr. Prashant Kulkarni i/by Naveen B. Khaire for Petitioners


                                         Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

Date : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2021 P.C.:

1. At the fag-end of the trial in Suit being Regular Civil Suit

No. 17 of 2009, an application Exhibit 201 came to be moved by the

Petitioners-Defendants under the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 17 of

C.P.C. for recalling his own witness, so as to record further examination-

in-chief.

2. The trial Court rejected the said application. As such, this

petition.

Dusane 2/3 23 wp 12364.19.doc

3. The submissions are, for the effective adjudication of the

suit, the further examination-in-chief of the said witness of the

Petitioners/Defendants is necessary.

4. The Petitioners have also placed reliance upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N.

Palanisamy, reported in 2011 (3) ALL M.R. page 455.

5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused

the evidence of the witness of the Petitioners/ Defendants, whose recall

is sought under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of C.P.C..

6. The said witness though cited by the Petitioners has not

supported his case.

7. Rather by way of an application, Exhibit 201, the

Petitioners have sought recording of further examination-in-chief of the

said witness.

8. The fact remains that the said witness was already

subjected to cross-examination and he has completely deposed against

Dusane 3/3 23 wp 12364.19.doc

the Petitioners. As such, recalling of said witness that too at the stage

of final hearing of the suit is completely unwarranted as it could be

noticed that the said attempt is with intent to fill up the lacunae.

9. No interference is called for. The Petition fails. Dismissed.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )