1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7317/07 Wali Mohammad vs. Ratan Devi & Ors. Date of order : 22/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri M.S. Beg for the petitioner. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Under challenge in the writ petition is the order dated 17.5.07 and 12.4.06 whereby the application for recalling the witness of the plaintiff PW-2 Abhishekh to cross examine him for the purpose of getting photographs and its negatives exhibited was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when earlier PW-2 Abhishekh was cross examined, the negatives were not allowed to be exhibited in evidence because the defendant could not at that time produce the negatives. The negatives are subsequently brought on record and the Court by order dated 12.4.2006 permitted the same to be placed on record. Subsequently, the 2 petitioner filed application for recalling of the witness, which was rejected on 17.5.2007. Learned counsel submitted that now the negatives are on record, therefore, the aforesaid witness may be allowed to be recalled for the purpose of cross examination so that the negatives could be got exhibited. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders, it is found that the learned trial court by order dated 28.3.2006 had already permitted deletion of negative from the evidence. The order taking the negatives on record was also passed on 12.4.2006 and thereafter the application of the petitioner was rejected on 17.5.2006. In the circumstances, when the order dated 28.3.2006 whereby the photographs were ordered to be deleted had attained finality at this stage now two years thereafter recalling of that order cannot be justified. Even otherwise when the order was passed on 17.5.2007 and the writ petition was filed by the petitioner belatedly on 23.5.2007 within which time not 3 only the evidence of the plaintiff has been concluded and also the evidence of the defendant started. This delay assumes significance in view of the fact that the suit was filed way back in the year 2002. I am therefore not inclined to now permit recall of the witness. In my view, the impugned order does not suffer from any such legal infirmity as may warrant interference by this Court. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/