1 wp4723.08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 4723 of 2008 Mr. Namdeo Mahadeo Kapre ... Petitioner v/s. Sou. Anusaya Bhauso Bhondave & anr. ... Respondents Mr. R.S. Kadam for the petitioner. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- MARCH 08, 2011. P.C. Inspite of being served with notice for final disposal, none appears for the respondents. 2. Hence, rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18th April, 2008 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for recalling one Dr. Ashok Veer as witness came to be rejected. 2 wp4723.08.sxw 4. The petitioner has filed suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by his deceased father in favour of the respondents. It is the contention of the petitioner that on account of his father suffering injuries in couple of accidents, he was mentally not fit to execute the sale deed. In order to substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined the aforesaid Doctor Ashok Veer as plaintiff's witness. It is the plaintiff's case that subsequently certain additional documents which would fortify the contention of the petitioner were came in hands of the petitioner and as such an application for leading secondary evidence was filed. The same is allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for recalling Dr. Ashok Veer so as to put those documents to the said witness. The said application is rejected. 5. Shri Kadam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that the petitioner desires to re-examine the said Dr. Ashok Veer for the limited purpose of putting the said documents in respect of which the secondary evidence is allowed to the said witness. 6. In such peculiar facts and circumstances, I am inclined to allow the petition. The impugned order dated 18th April, 2010 is quashed and set 3 wp4723.08.sxw aside. The application of the present petitioner for recalling Dr. Ashok Veer is allowed. 7. However, it s made clear that re-examination of the said witness would be restrained only in respect of documents in respect of which secondary evidence has been allowed by the learned trial Court. 8. Needless to state that defendants would be entitled to cross-examine the said witness only insofar as the re-examination is concerned. 9. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (B.R. GAVAI, J)