1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition no. 5040 of 2011 Aparna Satish Lovekar Vs. Satish Kalidas Lovekar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. N.B. Jawade, Adv for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 7 th October, 2011. Heard Shri Jawade, the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the trial court on 6.9.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for permission to recall the respondent for cross-examination. The trial court rightly rejected the application as the permission to recall the respondent for cross-examination was sought only on the ground that the petitioner has changed the counsel and the newly engaged counsel realised that the respondent was not cross-examined on some material facts. The trial court rightly rejected the application as a witness cannot be recalled for cross-examination merely because the other party changes the counsel and later on realises that there are some lacunae in conducting the cross-examination. Since the order is just and proper, the same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.