1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3121 OF 2010. M/s. Pooja Consultants, Engineers and Contractors -: VERSUS :- M.S.R.T.C. Buldhana. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 14, 2010. Heard Shri Rohit Joshi, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri S.C. Mehadia, learned counsel for respondent. Petitioners/defendant has challenged order dated 20.03.2010 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldhana below Exh.282 rejecting his prayer to recall plaintiffs witness Nos. 1 and 3. Shri Joshi, learned counsel states that those witnesses are qualified engineers and the final bill was not on record when they were examined and cross examined. The final bill came to be produced thereafter, and only a clerk 2 who verified the mathematical calculations therein was examined and in his deposition, the final bill has been exhibited. According to him as the plea of respondent / plaintiff is of abandonment of work and and getting it completed from another agency, the preparation of final bill is important. The qualified engineers therefore, must be allowed to be cross examined in relation to the final bill and its technical aspect. Shri Mehadia, learned counsel for respondent on the other hand relies upon the deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure and states that such right is not available to the defendant. He further argues that the measurement books were already on record and the engineers were examined and cross examined in the light of the entries in the measurement books. His contention is, because of this position, separate cross examination in the light of the final bill is not required. At this stage nothing can be said with certainty about need of cross examination, only because the final bill has been placed on record later on. The facts however, show that the clerk examined has not deposed in relation to the technical details in said final bill. He has only referred to the measurement books as its source. 3 Interest of justice therefore, can be met with by directing present petitioner/defendant to enter the witness box and to substantiate his defence or even to point out the defects if any, in the final bill. After completion of such evidence, if the trial Court finds that there is any need for conducting cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.3, the trial Court can grant that liberty to present petitioner/defendant. Hence, with liberty to petitioner / defendant to move the trial Court for grant of such opportunity, present Writ Petition is disposed of. It is made clear that if such an application is moved by the petitioner, the same shall be decided on its own merits and uninfluenced by the order passed below Exh.272 and by the observations made by this Court in this order. Contentions of Shri Mehadia, learned counsel about the effect of deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17A of Code of Civil Procedure, is kept open at appropriate stage. Writ Petition is thus disposed of in aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.