IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 52 OF 2010 MADHAV ATMARAM SAHAKARI AND 3 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus PANDURANG X. TILVE ( SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR'S ... Respondent Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for Respondent nos. 1(p) and 1(q). Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 21st April, 2010 P.C. This is Defendants' Writ Petition and is directed against Order dated 07.01.2010, by which, the learned Civil Judge,Junior Division, in Civil Suit no. 130/00/C, has allowed two documents namely letters dated 04.10.1957 and 27.05.1957 issued by the Zonal Agricultural Office i.e. Reparticao de Formento, to be produced in evidence in support of the case of the Plaintiffs. 2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of this Writ Petition : The Plaintiffs had filed the suit in the year 1974. The evidence of the Plaintiff i.e. Pw.1 Shri Tilve, was completed in the year 1978. After that, the Plaintiff, Shri Tilve, expired and in the year 1983, his legal representatives were brought on record. The Defendants then began with their evidence and, on 26.10.2009, Defendants' last witness i.e. Dw.9 was being examined. The said Dw.9 made certain statements and to contradict the said statements, the Plaintiffs showed the said two letters to him namely letters dated 04.10.1957 and 27.05.1957, regarding which Dw.9 feigned ignorance. However, the Defendants thereafter closed their case. The Plaintiff/s thereafter filed an application and the said two documents have now been produced pursuant to the said Order through the son of the Plaintiff namely Pw.5. 3. Thereafter, the present Writ Petition was filed to challenge the said Order on 18.01.2010. No stay Order was issued by this Court as a result and during the pendency of this Writ Petition, Pw.5 was examined and cross examined i.e. Damodar Shet Tilve and the said documents were produced and the case was fixed for final arguments yesterday as informed by learned Counsel on behalf of the parties and thereafter it is now fixed for arguments on 27th instant. 4. Shri Diniz, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants, submits that considering the passage of time, the Plaintiffs could not have been allowed to produce the said documents/letters and, in that regard, Shri Diniz has placed reliance on two decisions namely the case of Prabhakar Yeshwant Ranade vs. Gajanan Narayan Adivarekar & Ors. (1991 (4) Bom.C.R. 551) and Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) through Lrs. vs. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (2009 DGLS (Soft.) 243). 5. In the first case, an application for recall of the Plaintiff was made after the Defendants' evidence was closed and, in such a situation, this Court held that the permission to adduce additional evidence could not have been granted. In the second case, the Hon'ble Apex Court have stated that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 have got to be exercised sparingly and not as a general rule on the ground that recall and re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. The Apex Court has held that the said provision is not intended to fill up the omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined in the case but only to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen in the course of his examination. Counsel for the Petitioners submit that it is not the case of the Plaintiffs that these two documents were not available at the time when the Plaintiffs closed their case and, therefore, the Plaintiffs ought not to have been allowed to produce the said two documents. 6. Shri Ramani, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents/Plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that considering the stage the suit has reached, the impugned Order need not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction. Learned Counsel further submits that the point as to what evidentiary value could be given to the said documents could be left open, but to that the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the said objection has already been kept open. 7. Be that as it may, it is to be noted that the said documents were brought to the knowledge of the Defendants at the time when they were produced in the cross examination of Defendants' witness i.e. Defendant no.9 on 26.10.2009 and, thereafter, they have been allowed to be produced by Pw.5 who has also been cross examined by the Defendants. The case is now fixed for final arguments. Considering the facts of the case, therefore, this would not be a fit case for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction as no gross injustice can be said to have been caused to the Defendants in the suit. (See Surya Devi Rai's case (2003 (6) S.C.C. 675). It is always open to the Defendants to challenge the impugned order in an appeal that may be filed if the result of the suit goes against them. 8. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is rejected. N. A. BRITTO, J. arp/*