WP. 5318-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 5318 OF 2011 Smt. Malati Uddhav More & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Radhika Pramod Palkar & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Vishwanath S. Talkute, for the Petitioners. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JULY 15, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners are aggrieved by an order passed by the 6th Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. Division Satara, dated 18th June, 2011. By the said order, the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents herein for the purpose of permitting him to re-examine their own witness. 2. The brief facts are that - . Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant/petitioners herein for eviction on various grounds under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. WP. 5318-11 - 2 - The plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and of one of the witnesses, who is a photographer and who has taken the photographs on his camera. In the said affidavit of in lieu of evidence, it was contended that the photographer had taken the photographs with his digital camera and therefore, there was no question of there being any any negatives. The witness was cross-examined and after the cross- examination was over, an application was made seeking permission to re-examine the witness. In the said application it was stated that in the examination-in-chief the witness had erroneously stated that the said photographs were taken on the digital camera and the said mistake has occurred since photographs were taken about six years ago and due to lapse of time, said incorrect statement was made. It was stated that this fact was required to be clarified. This application was, therefore, allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that re- examination could be permitted only if new facts were brought on record during the course of cross-examination. It was submitted that re- examination could not be permitted to fill up the lacuna in the evidence or to correct the statement, made in the examination-in-chief. He invited my attention to the provisions of Section 137 and 138 of the Indian WP. 5318-11 - 3 - Evidence Act, 1872. It is also submitted that reliance was also placed on judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of – Smt. Kailash Kumari vs. Smt. Rajni Monga & Ors.1. 4. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The trial court has taken into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of – Rami vs. State of M.P.2 wherein the Apex Court has held that purpose of re- examination cannot be restricted to the extent of clarifying ambiguity arising in the cross-examination but new facts could be introduced with permission of the court, since adverse party has right to cross-examine the witness. In the present case also, the petitioner herein has been permitted to cross-examine the said witness and the re-examination is restricted only to the extent of taking photographs by a camera and its negatives. In my view, this is not a fit case where this Court can interfere with the impugned interlocutory order, passed by the trial Court. Civil Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.] 1 CS (OS) 2721/1997. 2 (1999) 8 SCC 649