Harishchandra S/O Ramprasad ... vs Paresh S/O Dhirajbhai Patel
2023 Latest Caselaw 7501 Bom

                                                    1                                         11.WP.4690-2023.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 4690 OF 2023
                          ( Harishchandra s/o Ramprasad Varma
                                            Vs.
                                Paresh s/o Dhirajbhai Patel )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                           Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. P.P. Kotwal, Advocate for the Petitioner.




                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 27th JULY, 2023

Heard Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petition challenges the order dated 18.12.2021 passed below Exh. 141, whereby the application for recalling the plaintiff for the purpose of cross-examination, has been rejected, which rejection has been confirmed by the learned Revisional Court by the judgment dated 30.09.2022 (page 36).

3. It is contended by Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that consequent to the amendment of written statement since a plea was permitted to be incorporated that the plaintiff has let out adjacent premises owned by him to two tenants, the plaintiff whose evidence has already been completed was required to be recalled.

2 11.WP.4690-2023.odt

4. Though reliance is placed on K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy, 2011 (11) SCC 275, in my considered opinion, the same is of no assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the reason that the scope of recall under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is merely for the purpose of clarification of any ambiguity which is demonstrated to have crept up in the evidence which needs to be clarified. The provisions cannot be permitted to be used for a blanket recall of the party for cross-examination. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order.

5. The Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.

6. Needless to say, that the petitioner is entitled to prove the plea which is raised by way of amendment by leading appropriate evidence in case it is so desired.

JUDGE SD. Bhimte