wp7904-09.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7904 OF 2009 Sunil Gajanan Kulkarni ..Petitioner versus Madhyamvargiya Sarvodaya Sahakari Gruh Rachana Sanstha Mydt. & Ors ..Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.N.V.Gangal for the petitioner. Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Sr.Adv with Mr.N.N.Bhadrashete, Mr.M.G.Patil and Mr.R.S.Kate for respondent No.1. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 6th July 2011. P.C.: . This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the lower Court on 3rd August 2009. By the order under challenge, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court has rejected the revision application. That revision application was filed by the petitioner Sunil Kulkarni who is the original opponent No.1 in dispute being Dispute No.79 of 1995. He was wp7904-09.doc 2 aggrieved by order dated 19th June 2009 made below Exhibit 143. The trial Judge by order under challenge allowed the original disputant to recall a witness already examined. Recalling of this witness being permitted, that the petitioner filed the said revision application. His principal argument was that the earlier deposition of the witness would be adversely affected and virtually wasted out in the light of the discretion exercised by the trial Court. The trial Court has allowed the application for recalling the witness. The argument was that the trial Court has ignored Order XVIII, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and particularly Rule 17A thereof and has taken resort to section 151, it was not permissible in law. 2 After the matter was heard for sometime and with the assistance of both the advocates impugned orders are perused, to my mind, since the application is pending for a long time and now that the amendments are carried out, further steps in pursuance of the amendment will have to be permitted, interest of justice would be served if the witness who has been wp7904-09.doc 3 recalled by the order dated 19th June 2009, shall be permitted to be examined by the original disputant. After his examination- in-chief, all opponents to the dispute shall be permitted to cross-examine the said witness and there shall be no restriction on their right to cross-examine as apprehended. The cross-examination shall be permitted in accordance with law. With this modification in the impugned order and bearing in mind the subsequent development, the order of the Revisional Court stands quashed and set aside. Writ petition is disposed off in these terms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)