1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.229 OF 2011 (PRATAP N. KUDAWALE & OTH...VS.. RAMESH J. PATEL (PISKE) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 17, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By this petition the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court on 06.09.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for recalling of the plaintiff and his witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the trial Court on 06.09.2010 cannot be sustained on the ground on which it has been made and the Roznama shows that the learned counsel for the defendant was present on the relevant date in the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a document was filed along with application for permission to recall the plaintiff and his witnesses for cross-examination and on a consideration of the application and the document annexed thereto, it was necessary for the trial Court to have allowed the application filed by the petitioners. 2 4. The order passed by the trial Court on 06.09.2010 rejecting the application filed by the defendants/ petitioners for recalling the plaintiff and his witnesses for further cross- examination is just and proper. 5. The power to recall the witnesses for cross- examination should be exercised by the trial Court in stringent cases and in exceptional circumstances. It is necessary to consider the application filed by the petitioners for recalling the plaintiff and his witnesses for cross- examination. It is stated in the application that the plaintiff and his witnesses could not be examined on certain material facts which were not stated by the plaintiff in the examination-in-chief and therefore, re-cross-examination of the plaintiff was necessary for fair disposal of the suit. It is not stated in the application as to what material was noticed by the defendants recently at the time of filing of the application and which was not disclosed by the plaintiff. It is also not stated in the application as to how the said material facts which recently came to the knowledge of the defendants were necessary for effectively deciding the controversy between the parties. Moreover, it is necessary to note that the defendants have not tendered oral evidence in this case and the defendants can very well bring the new material of which the defendants became allegedly aware, at the time of filing of the application by tendering evidence in that regard. Though the reason recorded by the trial Court for rejecting the application may or may not be just and proper, the ultimate rejection of the application cannot be faulted with, in 3 the facts and circumstances of the case, specially after consideration of the application filed by the defendants for permission to recall the plaintiff and his witnesses and the relevant law on the subject. 6. Since there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 06.09.2010, the order does not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..