1 W.P.No.3510/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3511 OF 2010. 1. Ramnath S/o Devram Kandekar, Age 75 years, Occ.Agri. 2. Parvatabai W/o Ramnath Kandekar, Age 65 years, Occ.Agri., 3. Subhash S/o Ramnath Kandekar, Age 42 years, Occ.Agri., 4. Kashinath S/o Ramnath Kandekar, Age 37 years, Occ.Agri., 5. Janabai W/o Ananda Jondhale, Age 40 years, Occ.Agri., All R/o Palaskhede, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 6. Gayabai W/o Radhakisan Kasar, Age 37 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Ghulewadi, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 7. Parighabai W/o Maruti Gunjal, Age 45 years,Occ.Agri., R/o Gunjal Mala, Opp. Sangamner Panchayat Samiti, Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar. 8. Suman @ Nirmala Dhanaji Handore, Age 35 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Near Mhasoba Temple, Vihit Gaon, Wadala Road, Nashik. ... Petitioners. 2 W.P.No.3510/10 Versus 1. Sopan S/o Rangnath Kandekar, Age 55 years, Occ.Agri., 2. Gangadhar S/o Devrao Kandekar, Age 57 years, Occ.Agri; 3. Chandrabhagabai Dattatraya Ghogane, Age 52 years, Occ. Agri., All R/o Palaskhede, Tq.Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.S.Bedre, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.D.D.Pokharkar, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.D.M.Mane, advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 11.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3 W.P.No.3510/10 3. The petitioners are the original defendants. The present Respondent No.1 has filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff led examination-in- Chief by way of affidavit. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment. The trial Court allowed the same to the extent of correction of the name of Ramnath in the plaint. Thereafter, the plaintiff again filed afresh examination-in-Chief. The same was objected by the present petitioners. The trial Court rejected the said objection vide order dated 11.3.2010. The petitioners have assailed the same in the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr.Bedre, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order is without jurisdiction. Once an examination-in-Chief is submitted, no fresh examination-in-Chief can be allowed. The amendment in the plaint was only to the extent of name of Ramnath. In view of that additional examination-in-Chief in respect of the facts which were not in earlier examination-in- Chief were not permissible. 4 W.P.No.3510/10 5. Mr.Pokharkar, learned counsel submits that there is no bar under the Code for the plaintiff to file additional examination-in- Chief. There is provision putting an embargo on the right of the party to file additional examination-in-Chief, the Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the objection of the petitioners. 6. Once a party has led his examination- in-Chief, then it is for the other party to cross-examine. Allowing a party to file additional examination-in-Chief would be recalling the witness, the same is not permissible. If the plaintiffs would have been allowed amendment in the plaint then they would have led additional evidence in respect of the amendment i.e. allowed subsequently to the earlier examination-in-Chief. In the present case, the amendment i.e. allowed is only correction of a typographically mistake in the name and no further. In view of that it was not open for the plaintiff to file additional examination-in-Chief, when the earlier 5 W.P.No.3510/10 examination-in-Chief is on record. The same would be against the procedure as laid under Rule (4) of Order XVIII of the C.P.C. 7. In light of above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp351110