(1) WP 11548.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11548 OF 2010 Mohan Uttamrao Chavan PETITIONER VERSUS Manisha Mohan Chavan RESPONDENT ..... Mr. V.D. Patnurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.Y. Nandedkar, Advocate for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Contention Court below could not have permitted recall of petitioner-plaintiff for his cross-examination by defendant. Reliance is being placed on judgment of this Court in the matter of Balkrishna Shivappa Shetty Vs. Mahesh Nenshi Bhakta and ors. reported at 2003 Vol. 3 Mh.L.J. 47, particularly paragraph 5 to urge that provision contained in Order 18 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure does not deal with subject of allowing the parties to cross-examine the witness after such witness being recalled in exercise of powers (2) WP 11548.2010 thereunder. It has been held that the said provisions do not empower the Court to recall the witness for the purpose of cross-examination by either of the parties, though it does permit recall of witnesses for the purpose of examination by the Court itself. 2. I find the reliance misconceived because of subsequent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India AIR 2005 S.C. 3353. 3. In impugned order, the trial Court has found that sale deed necessary to confront plaintiff was not available to defendant and, therefore, for purpose of confrontation, recall has been permitted. The nature of controversy is also briefly recorded. Thus, trial Court has satisfied itself about the relevance or importance of such exercise and confrontation. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is therefore rejected. Sd/- [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] arp