1 W.P.No.2920/10 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2920 OF 2010. Nawneet S/o Kantrao Kalyankar, Age 22 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Sharda Nagar, Nanded, Taluka and District Nanded. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Sumanbai W/o Gulabrao Deshmukh, Age 49 years, Occ.Household, R/o Sawna, Taluka Mahagaon, Dist.Yeotmal. 2. Narayan Wamanrao Kalyankar, Age 47 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Kharbi, Tq.Bhokar, District Nanded, at present R/o Babanagar, Nanded. Taluka and District Nanded. 3. Balasaheb S/o Wamanrao Kalyankar, AGe 53 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Kharbi, Tq. Bhokar, Dist.ANanded, Now R/o Gandewar Colony, Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, Dist.Nanded. 4. Kantrao S/o Wamanrao Kalyanrao, Age 45 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Shardanagar, Nanded, Dist.Nanded. 5. Sharnappa S/o Vishwanathappa Kalyankar, Age 60 years, 2 W.P.No.2920/10 Occ.Agril., R/o Kharbi, Tq.Bhokar, Dist.Nanded (abated). ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr.M.V.Ghatge, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 30.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed suit for partition and separate possession. The present petitioner is the original defendant No.3. At the relevant time, he was minor and represented by a guardian. On attaining the age of majority, the petitioner applied for filing a 3 W.P.No.2920/10 fresh written statement. The said application was allowed. Pursuant thereto, the present petitioner filed a fresh written statement. The said order is not assailed by any party. After filing the fresh written statement, the petitioner filed an application seeking cross- examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses who were examined earlier. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Under Order 32 Rule 12 of the C.P.C. on attaining the age of majority, the party has got a right to choose further course of action. As a matter of course the minor who has attained majority has no right to file fresh written statement unless and until he shows the Court that the guardian acted against his interest. In the present matter, after the petitioner attained the age of majority, he filed an application for fresh written statement which came to be allowed. The plaintiffs accepted the said order. Even the fresh written statement is filed, read and recorded. After the fresh written statement is 4 W.P.No.2920/10 filed, new defence is undertaken. The petitioner has filed application for recalling the plaintiff and his witnesses for cross-examination. In view of fresh written statement being filed on record, the case would not be governed by the parameters under Order 18 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. in such case. Mr.Katneshwarkar, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Balkrishna Shivappa Shetty Vs. Mahesh Nenshi Bhakta and others" reported 2003 (4) Bom.C.R.45 to contend that under Order 18 Rule 17 and 18 of the C.P.C., the witness can be recalled and right to ask question to the witness vests with the Court. 5. In the present case, the recall of the witness for further cross-examination will not be strictly governed by Order 18 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. as the trial Court has allowed the petitioner to file a fresh written statement raising new defences. In such circumstances, the petitioner would get a right to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witness. Even the plaintiff would have a right to adduce the additional 5 W.P.No.2920/10 evidence, in view of fresh written statement being filed i.e. choice of the plaintiffs. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order can not be sustained. The same is set aside and the application Exh.161 is allowed. 7. Rule made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp2920.10