1 wp502.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 502 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. R. B. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Ashish Jadhavar holding for Mr. N.P. Patil- Jamalpurkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2011 Heard Advocate Mr. R.B. Deshmukh for petitioners and Advocate Mr. Ashish Jadhavar holding for Mr. N.P. Patil-Jamalpurkar for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Respondent no.1 is the father of the present petitioners. 2. Question involved is whether, the respondent no.1 father purchased the tractor after the properties were transferred to him by the present petitioners. The date of purchase of tractor as appearing on record is either 09.02.1997 or 09.12.1997. The witness from the office of R.T.O. Latur produced relevant records and after his examination in chief by defendants, he was cross examined. In cross examination, he has denied 2 wp502.11 suggestion that on original record with him date 09.02.1997 was not appearing. After verifying the record, he has stated that date on record was 09.12.1997. Then he accepted that on Exhibit-85 registration form date 09.12.1997 was not appearing. In registration book there was no entry of purchase on 09.02.1997. After this cross examination, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 sought leave to reexamine the said witness. That leave was opposed by the petitioners by pointing out that there was no ambiguity and no need to reexamine the witness. By impugned order trial Court granted leave. 3. According to learned Counsel there is no ambiguity with answers given by the witness in cross examination. According to learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2, ambiguity is not only ground on which such reexamination is sought, but explanation about the two dates appearing on record is necessary. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at "A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 3544" ( Rammi alias Rameshwar V/s State of Madhya Pradesh) particularly the paragraph nos. 16 to 19 to substantiate his contentions. 4. Perusal of Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reveals that under section 138 of the Evidence Act once reexamination of witness is permitted, reexamination can not be confined to ambiguities alone which arose in cross examination. Other relevant questions to obtain 3 wp502.11 explanation of any matter referred to in cross-examination can also be put. Here, this Court is concerned with the scope of reexamination, only question is when the party can be permitted such reexamination ? The witness was Government Officer. On the basis of record he has given the answers which have been recorded by the trial Court. Respondent nos.2 and 3 have not pointed out that said record contains any other information or document relevant for the purpose of verification of these dates. In this situation, it is apparent that leave granted is unsustainable. Same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Petition is allowed. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp502.11