SBC WRIT EPTITION NO.1784/2007– PARAS MAL V/S SUSHIL KUMAR :JUDGMENT DTD.10.9.2009 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1784/2007 Parasmal Versus Sushil Kumar PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Sachin Acharya, for the petitioner Mr.M.B. Mewara, for the respondent. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10th September, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dtd.27.2.2007 whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. for recalling of the witness Paras Mal who had already been examined by the learned trial Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Rai V/s Smt. Sulochna Devi reported in 2000 WLC (Raj.) UC 323 submits that under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. the witness can be recalled only if the Court thinks it necessary to put questions to the witness already called by the Court after it is found in the interest of justice, but the said provision cannot be used for strengthening the case of the SBC WRIT EPTITION NO.1784/2007– PARAS MAL V/S SUSHIL KUMAR :JUDGMENT DTD.10.9.2009 2/2 plaintiff, if he produced certain documents later on and wants to cross-examine the said witness again for that purpose. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff – respondent submits that the discretion has been used in favour of the plaintiff by the impugned order recalling the said witness Paras Mal in view of patta produced by the said plaintiff and the neighbourhood given by the witness Paras Mal earlier were wrong apparently, therefore, his cross-examination was necessary. 4. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the legal position as stated above, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall the said witness Paras Mal at the fag end of the trial Court on the application of the plaintiff to recall the said witness in view of the document produced by him. The impugned order does not disclose any reason by the Court for which in the interest of justice, it was considered expedient by the learned trial Court to recall the said witness. 5. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dtd.27.2.2007 is set aside. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.15 Ss/-