1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5898 OF 2009 Pushpalata Gopal Worlikar & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. Trikambhai Lakhabhai & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.S.Paradkar for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Redekar for respondent no.1 Mr.M.M.Malvankar for B.M.C. Mr.A.P.Vanarse,AGP for the State CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned A.G.P for State. Considering the limited controversy involved in the petition, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2 The petitioners are the original 3rd and 4th defendants. During the cross examination of the second witness (an officer of the Municipal Corporation) examined by the plaintiff, questions were asked on copies of certain documents which are marked as Exhibit-21. The witness was shown a copy of assessment bill which is marked as Exh.19 In the cross examination made by the Advocate for the petitioners, the said witness denied that the said document was fabricated and stated that the 2 original of the said document will have to be serched in his office. After the cross examination was completed, an application was made by the petitioners for issuing summons to the said witness for production of the original documents. The said application was allowed and thereafter, the originals of the documents forming part of Exhibit 21 were produced. However, the witness stated that original of Exhibit 19 was not traceable. A prayer was made by the petitioners for recalling the said witness for cross examining him on the documents at Exh. 21 and Exh.19. The said application has been rejected by the trial court by the impugned order. 3 The learned counsel for the first respondent- original plaintiff opposed the petition by contending that the Advocate for the petitioner has already cross examined the witness on documents at Exh.19 and Exh.21. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for. 4 After having considered the submissions, I find that the original documents of which xerox copies were already produced at Exh.21 were produced after the cross examination of the P.W.no.2 was completed. The witness stated that he was in a position to produce the originals of the documents at Exh.21. Now, the original documents have been produced. The petitioners cannot denied an 3 opportunity to cross examine the said witness on the said original documents. As far as the document at Exh.19 is concerned, the original has not been produced by the witness. Hence, further cross examination cannot be allowed on the basis of the document at Exh.19. The prayer made by the petitioners will have to be allowed to aforesaid extent. 5 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and Order dated 27th April 2009 is quashed and set aside. The trial court will recall the P.W.No.2 Prakash Hivare for further cross examination by the Advocate for the petitioners. ii)It is, however, clarified that the cross examination will be confined to the originals of the documents at Exh.21. iii)Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE