1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5286 OF 2008 Mr. V.C.Solshe, Advocate for petitioners Mr. K.K.Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no. 2. [ CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. ] DATE : 24/02/2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are original defendants in suit (R.C.S. No. 110 of 1995). The respondents adduced certain evidence in support of their contentions and when the trial was at the midst, they submitted an application to recall the Village Development Officer, who was already examined, in order to corroborate certain documents which were subsequently produced. They contended that the documents pertain to the record of the Village Panchayat and could be of significance in order to properly adjudicate the lis. They wanted examination of the Village Development Officer in order to clarify the relevant documentary evidence. They submitted that re-examination of the Village Development Officer was essential in order to high light the official work and not to obtain any personal information. The trial Court allowed the application. The petitioners challenge such order alleging that it was an attempt to fill up lacuna and, therefore, could 2 not be permitted. 3. Mr. Solshe invited my attention to the observations in “ Balkrishna Shivappa Shetty V/s Mahesh Nenshi Bhakta and others ” ( 2003 (3) Mh. L.J. - 47 ). A single bench of this Court held that power to recall witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure can not be exercised by the Court for cross examination of witnesses by either of the parties but for the purpose of examination by Court itself. It is further held that in order to fill up lacuna in evidence, inherent powers can not be exercised. It was the case in which the defendant no. 1 was being recalled for further cross examination on behalf of the plaintiffs. Once the cross examination was over, the witness could not have been recalled under the garb that some more questions had remained to be asked. The fact situation of the present case is on different footings. The recalling of Village Development Officer was sought with a view to obtain further information regarding the official documents. The purpose can not be said to be of filling up of any lacuna as such. 4. Mr. Solshe also invited my attention to the observations in “ Prabhakar Yeshwant Ranade V/s Gajanan Narayan Adivarekar and others ” ( 1992 (2) Mh.L.J. - 1041 ). It is held that before granting permission, the Court should be genuinely satisfied about the bonafides of the circumstances pleaded while exercising powers under 3 Order XVIII Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, the trial Court has exercised its discretion in view of peculiar circumstances and there is hardly any material to infer perversity in the exercise of such discretion. It is well settled that discretionary orders of the Court can not be interfered with in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless it is found that there is patent illegality or total absence of mis- application of the law or non application of judicial mind to the fact situation. In this view of the matter, the petition is destitute of substance and as such it is dismissed. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE knp/WP 5286.2008