CW- 5077/2008 -Nimba Vs. Ratanlal Judgment dt.29.7.08 1\2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5077/2008 Nimba Vs. Ratanlal Date of order : 29th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Sandeep Saruparia for the petitioner. --------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.7.2008 whereby the learned trial court rejected the application of the defendant under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. whereby the defendant sought to recall DW 1 witness produced by the plaintiff for cross- examination on certain legal issue. 3. The learned trial court has rejected the said application with cost of Rs.5,000/- as in the opinion of the learned trial court the defendant could not recall and cross-examine a witness merely to fill up his lacunae in the cross-examination. 4. This was a suit for money recovery filed by the plaintiff- petitioner in which the Exhibit 1 Ledger which was produced before the learned trial Court and marked as Exhibit 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that since the plaintiff was doing money landing business he wanted to put a question to PW about the licence to do so. He submits that on account of earlier lapse of counsel, the defendant should not suffer and the application under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. ought to have been allowed by the learned trial Court. He relies upon the decision in Jodhpur Gums & CW- 5077/2008 -Nimba Vs. Ratanlal Judgment dt.29.7.08 2\2 Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab national Bank & Ors. - 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 708 wherein this Court has held that the plaintiff could be allowed to re-summon the witnesses to prove the documents which were left unexhibited due to oversight of the advocate. The facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case where the defendant has sought recall of plaintiff's witness to fill up his own lacunae in cross-examination if at all it can be said to be done. 6. The learned trial court in the opinion of this Court has not committed any error in rejecting the said application filed to delay the trial. 7. The writ petition is found to be without any force. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine. A copy of this order be sent to Trial Court and plaintiff respondent forthwith. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.8 babulal/-