1 cra115.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 115 OF 2011 [The Secretary Nutan Education Society Parbhani vs. Khamar Ali Shah & Ors] WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 116 OF 2011 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 125 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. P.S. Paranjape, Advocate for the revision applicants. Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate for R-3 in CRA No. 115/2011. Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for State. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the revision applicants submits that, he is engaged by defendant No.1 in the month of January 2 cra115.11 2011. Thereafter, he took search of the papers and he found that certain questions which were required to be put in the cross examination of the plaintiff, have not been asked to the plaintiff. Sum and substance of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that, after careful scrutiny of all papers and documents, he realized that many important aspects have been missed in the cross examination and therefore, it is necessary to recall the plaintiff for examination. However, the trial Court erroneously rejected the application for recalling the witness. Learned Counsel also invited my attention to the grounds taken in the Civil Revision Applications, annexures thereto, and grounds taken in the application which was filed before the Wakf Tribunal and submitted that, in the interest of justice, these Civil Revision Applications deserve to be allowed. The revision applicants are 3 cra115.11 ready to pay reasonable costs if the applications are allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents placed reliance on the reasons of the Tribunal and submitted that, the Tribunal after considering the relevant provisions and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also judgment of Gauhatti High Court reached to the correct conclusion and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the Civil Revision Applications. 4. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. I have also perused the impugned judgment and order. From perusal of the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal in Para-8 and 9, considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Para-10 considered the judgment of the Gauhatti High Court and has reached to 4 cra115.11 the correct conclusion that, once the plaintiff was recalled on the prayer of defendant No.1 for cross examination calling again the plaintiff for cross examination would result unnecessarily delaying the proceedings. 5. It is not in dispute that, the relief sought by the revision applicants was invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal has rightly refused to grant prayer of the applicants. In my opinion, from the reasons which are assigned in the impugned judgment and order, no infirmity can be found in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, Civil Revision Applications are devoid of any merits and same stand rejected. . Interim relief stands vacated. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11