1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3780 OF 2009 Piraji Chandrabhan Khabale Petitioner versus Maruti Dagadu Jadhav and another Respondents Ms.Manjiri S. Parasnis for petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd February 2010 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. On 12th August 2009 this Court issued notice for final disposal at the admission stage. It is stated that the respondents are duly served. None appears for them. 2. By this writ petition under Article 27 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13th January 2009 passed by the Trial Court. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner filed a suit for a declaration that the sale deed dated 22nd December 1998 stood cancelled and is not binding on the petitioner. There are other reliefs claimed in the suit. The suit proceeded and the petitioner examined five witnesses. An application was made by the petitioner at Exhibit-142 praying that the sale deed and other documents produced by the 2 petitioner along with List Exhibit-65 be exhibited. An application was made at Exhibit-144 by the petitioner claiming that the petitioner and his witnesses be recalled for the purposes of proving the agreement and sale deed produced along with list Exhibit-65. By the impugned orders, the learned Trial Judge rejected the said applications. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the averments made in paragraph 2 of the application at Exhibit-144. She submitted that the petitioner wants to recall himself for leading further evidence confined to the said documents and the petitioner wants to examine the scribe of the documents. She submitted that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to do so. 4. A specific contention has been raised by the petitioner in application at Exhibit-144 that the advocate engaged by the petitioner fell ill during pendency of the suit and he unfortunately expired. She pointed out that, in the process, the documents namely original agreement for sale and the sale deed produced along with list Exhibit-65 were not marked as exhibits. The petitioner wants to recall himself for further examination only on these two documents and the petitioner wants to examine the scribe of the documents. To that extent permission deserves to be granted. Only after the petitioner adduces additional evidence, the Court will have to consider the question whether the documents in dispute have been duly proved. 3 5. The petitioner is disposed by passing following order :- A) The impugned order passed below Exhibit-144 is set aside; B) The petitioner is permitted to recall himself for further examination- in-chief only on the proof of execution and contents of the documents produced along with list Exhibit-65. The petitioner is also permitted to examine the scribe of the documents; C) The petitioner will do so as expeditiously as possible without seeking adjournments; D) The application at Exhibit-144 is disposed of in above terms; E) After the additional evidence is adduced by the petitioner, the Trial Court will have to examine the question of exhibiting the documents in dispute. All questions in that behalf are kept open; F) The writ petition is partly allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)