1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5025 of 2011 Dr. Sheela Kamal Taori and another. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Anand Jaiswal, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. J.R. Kidilay, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 18 th October, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha, on 17.09.2011, rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for recalling of the reporting trustee and her witnesses at Exh. 210, for permission to examine additional witnesses at Exh. 211 and for permission to lead secondary evidence at Exh. 212. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Assistant Charity Commissioner was justified in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners. The Assistant Charity Commissioner observed that the District Judge, Wardha, had remanded the matter to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for deciding the Change Report within a period of three months and the Assistant Charity Commissioner had got the time extended on two occasions. The Authority found that after remand, the reporting trustee had tendered evidence on 11.2.2011 and was cross-examined by the objector on four to five dates of hearing. 2 The evidence of the reporting trustee-petitioner runs in 49 pages. The application filed by the petitioner-reporting trustee for re- examination was rejected by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Thereafter, the reporting trustee examined 7 to 8 witnesses and closed the evidence. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments on 2.9.2011. It appears that after 2.9.2011, the petitioners changed at least three counsels and after the last counsel was engaged, the aforesaid applications were filed for recalling of the reporting trustee and her witnesses for proving the documents which were filed on record. It is necessary to note that though the reporting trustee and the witnesses were examined at length, they did not tender any evidence in regard to the proof of the documents for which the petitioners are seeking recall of the reporting trustee and her witnesses. The Assistant Charity Commissioner rightly found that the power to recall the witnesses is required to be sparingly exercised and in the instant case, since the matter was at the stage of arguments, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked. The authority found that the reporting trustee was seeking a recall of the witnesses only to fill up the lacunae and the omissions on the part of the reporting trustee and the other witnesses. The authority found that a witness cannot be recalled merely to fill up the lacunae or to rectify the mistake of the counsel. The approach of the authority in rejecting the application is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The Assistant Charity Commissioner was justified in rejecting the application for permission to lead secondary evidence as the authority had already observed that the issue about the custody of the record of the trust prior to 19.6.2005 would be 3 decided at the time of final hearing. The authority found that granting the prayer in the application for leading secondary evidence pre-supposed that the custody of the trust record, prior to 19.6.2005 was in the custody of the objector. The Assistant Charity Commissioner observed that in the present case the reporting trustee had taken her own time for tendering the evidence and had closed the evidence on her side by examining herself at length and also several other witnesses. In this background, the Assistant Charity Commissioner did not think it fit to grant the prayer made in the application, specially when the matter was listed for arguments on more than a couple of occasions. The order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner cannot be faulted with. In any case, the question whether some of the articles need to be exhibited as they are duly proved by the reporting trustee and her witnesses, would be decided by the Assistant Charity Commissioner at the time of deciding the Change Report. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.