1 15 cra 651.09.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srk CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.651 OF 2009 Siddheshwar Kallappa Sanake ..Applicant. v/s. Sharada Siddheshwar Sanake ..Respondent. .... Mr. J.D.Mane for the Applicant. Ms. Geeta Patil i/b Mr. P.M.Pradhan for Respondent. .... CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 26TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for parties. The Respondent is wife of the Applicant. She filed Special Civil Suit No.234 of 2006 for maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. In her cross-examination she denied that she was serving as a Nurse. On behalf of the Applicant, who was Defendant in the said suit, Accountant of Markandeya Sahakari Rugnalay, Solapur was called as a witness to examine that she was serving as a Nurse in that hospital. According to the learned counsel for the Applicant, she was serving in that hospital in her 2 15 cra 651.09.doc maiden name Sharada Gajendra Kamble. The learned counsel also contended that the Plaintiff had remained absent when the witness from the hospital was examined and therefore, she could not be shown to the witness as a person who was in service in the hospital. In view of this, an Application Exhibit 54 was made by the Defendant to recall the Plaintiff for further cross-examination, so that the necessary questions could be put to her about her service in the hospital in her maiden name. That Application was opposed and was rejected by the impugned order. 2 The learned trial court observed that the learned advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that he is not disputing or denying that Plaintiff is serving as a Nurse. According to the learned counsel for the Applicant, even though the advocate had made that statement, that statement was contrary to the evidence of the Plaintiff and later on, she could take a stand that the statement made by the advocate was incorrect and therefore, it was necessary to cross-examine her on this aspect. 3 After perusal of the impugned order and the circumstances, I find that the trial court committed an error in refusing the 3 15 cra 651.09.doc request for recalling the Plaintiff for further cross-examination. The Civil Court is empowered under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, to recall any witness for cross-examination. In view of the given circumstances, it was absolutely necessary and in the interest of justice to recall her. 4 Therefore, Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside and the trial court is directed to recall the Plaintiff for further cross-examination for limited purpose as stated in the Application. [ J.H.BHATIA, J. ]