1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6922 OF 1999 Shri Uttamrao Nathojirao Mane ....Petitioner. V/s Shri Balu Shankar Shedage ....Respondent. ---- Mr. P.J. Shinde for the Petitioner. Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Respondent. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 7th March, 2007 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, rejecting his application for recalling Plaintiff’s witness Bajrang Chavan for further cross-examination. The Petitioner is original defendant. It is his case that after examination- in-chief of Bajrang Chavan was over, his advocate Mr. Barge cross-examined him and that he was not present in the Court when the examination- in-chief was recorded and, therefore, was not aware about the exact nature of the examination- in-chief. It is the case of the Petitioner in the said application that his advocate, therefore, felt that witness Bajrang is a formal witness and he was not 2 cross-examined at length. By the impugned order, this application for recalling the witness was rejected. 3. After the Petition was admitted, an additional affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner in which various other things have been mentioned. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent vehemently opposed the averments which are made in the additional affidavit. He has pointed out that no complaint has been filed by the Petitioner against his earlier advocate and that a totally new stand has been taken in this additional affidavit which has been filed. In my view, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent is justified in taking this objection and, therefore, I do not propose to consider the additional affidavit which has been filed after the Petition has been admitted. 4. Looking at the controversy in question, in my view, in the interest of justice, the relevant witness should be recalled so that he can be cross-examined by the Petitioner’s Counsel. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has submitted that in the application which has been made for recalling the witness for cross-examination, no particulars have been mentioned as to on what aspect the Petitioner wants to cross-examine this witness. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that, therefore, the said cross-examination should be restricted and the Petitioner’s Counsel should not be allowed to cross-examine 3 the witness on matters which are not relevant. In my view, though the reasons given in the application for recalling the witness are not sufficient for permitting the Petitioner to recall the witness, yet, in my view, in the interest of justice, the Petitioner is permitted to recall the witness. 5. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The said witness will be recalled for cross-examination. The Trial Court would restrict the cross-examination of this witness only on issues which are germane to the case and relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy in issue. The Trial Court is further directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of six months. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 29/03/2007 at 11.00 A.M and the Respondent shall keep the witness present on that date. 6. Petition is accordingly disposed of. (V. M. KANADE, J.)