IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 627 OF 2008 COFRE DE IGREJA DE S. SEBASTIAO CALVIM THROUGH ATTORNEY JOAQUIM R. T. FERNANDES ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. RAJENDRA RAIBA HALARNKAR AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Ms. Tonia Lobo, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 23rd January, 2009 P.C. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa, whereby she rejected the prayer of the plaintiff, who wanted to re-examine the witness. The witness while answering the questions put by the defendants stated that he had knowledge in 1975 about the mutation entry having been taken. Further he had stated that he came to know about the Deed of Sale having been executed by the defendant no.1 and 2 in the year 1975. The plaintiff contended before the learned Judge that in order to clear these two ambiguities, the plaintiff should be allowed to put questions in re-examination but the learned Judge rejected the application. It was contended by the learned counsel that re-examination is a right of the party and no Court should deny such right. It was contended that re-examination can be conducted by the party, by re-examining the witness in order to not only to clarify but even to explain the matter that has been brought in the cross examination. She relied on the decision in Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P. reported in (1999) 8 Supreme Court 649 and Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1563. There is no doubt that a party has a right to re-examine a witness. The question here is whether such re-examination is permissible in this particular case or not. The learned counsel states that the witness was confused and therefore that needs to be clarified. This submission of the learned counsel has no merit. There is no reason to hold that the witness was confused as he has clearly stated that in 1975 he came to know about the mutation entry. The learned counsel has stated that it is not known whether he has stated of his own or as a member of the Committee. It was for the plaintiff to have stated that from which date he was a member of the Committee or since which date he ceased to be a member of the Committee. Further it was contended that the plaintiff had stated that in the year 1975 the plaintiff's Committee had come to know that the name of the defendant no.1 and 2 was recorded in the occupants' column. The learned counsel states that apparently this statement of the witness is not correct, being contrary to the contents of document, that does not mean that re-examination of the witness can be conducted. A party has right to produce certified copy of the documents. It was for the Court to decide whether to accept the oral evidence or the documentary evidence. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the writ petition and it is dismissed. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. lh/.