1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6737 OF 2011. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.A.H.Kasliwal, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 07.09.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner herein had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The said suit was compromised and compromise decree was passed. The present petitioner impeached the said compromise decree on the ground that same was by fraud. The petitioner filed Civil Revision Application before this Court, challenging the order of compromise. This Court allowed the said Revision and directed fresh inquiry into the genuineness of the said compromise and also set aside the order of compromise recorded by the Court. The petitioner thereafter led her evidence in respect of the said compromise. The petitioner was cross-examined. 2 Thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. The said application was allowed. The Respondent challenged the same before this Court. This Court allowed the said Writ Petition and directed to comply the said order passed in Civil Revision Application filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved application Exh.56 seeking permission to lead further evidence. The trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Mr.Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a old lady. The compromise was got executed by fraud and misrepresentation. The relationship is not disputed. The petitioner can be permitted to reexamine herself in view of Section 138 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P." reported in (1999) 8 SCC 649, to contend that re-examination can not be limited to clarify the ambiguity but even other questions can be asked to elucidate the answers given in cross-examination. According to the learned counsel, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the Court should have allowed the application. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order, the application given. Perusal of the application 3 shows that the said application is given for additional evidence on ground that she gave wrong answers in cross-examination and not for re-examination and as such permission was sought for additional evidence. The application was not for re-examination of the petitioner. As such the judgment in a case of "Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P." referred supra would not be applicable. Moreover, the evidence was led by the petitioner long back and the application for leading additional evidence has been filed subsequently. Even if the additional evidence is to be led by the petitioner, the said would amount to recall of the witnesses as contemplated U/o 18 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. The scope of Order 18 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. is in a very narrow compass. There the questions are to be formulated and it is the Court who ask the questions. 5. Taking into account the aforesaid conspectus of the matter, I do not feel any error is committed by the Court in rejecting the application. 6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) 4 Dt.07.09.2011. asp/office/wp673711