1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8707 OF 2009 Mohd. Moizoddin s/o. Amiroddin, R/o. Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus Abdul Rashid s/o. Shaikh Hyder Saheb, R/o. Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. and others ....Respondents. Shri. H.I. Pathan, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 6th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order passed below Exh. 144 on 11th September 2009 in Regular Civil Suit No. 29/1997 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharmabad. 2. The application was filed by the petitioner, who is the defendant No. 1 in the said suit, for recalling the witness for evidence. It has been opposed, on the ground that there is no provision in law to recall the 2 witness for evidence and therefore, the application be rejected. It has been held that as per Order 18, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, there is no reason to recall the said witness for evidence. It has been further held that the application has been filed merely to prolong the suit. The defendant is directed to lead the evidence in the suit. 3. The order under challenge is an interlocutory in nature and the same can be challenged in an appeal, in the event, the decree is passed against the petitioner/defendant No. 1. Hence, without going in to the merits of the matter, the instant writ petition is dismissed, keeping the question open in respect of legality and correctness of the order passed on 11th September 2009, to be challenged in appeal, if any, preferred by the petitioner, challenging the decree, if passed against it. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp8707.09