1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. This is an application for review of the judgment rendered by this Court on 21.8.2008.

3. Learned Counsel for the review petitioners made the following submissions :

(1) During the course of hearing of the writ petition from which this review petition has arisen, this Court had expressed that it was inclined to allow the petition by imposing some costs on the review petitioners and that is why Counsel for review petitioners could not put forth all the points in the matter along with judgments which he wanted to rely upon and therefore, that is the error on the face of record.

(2) The decision in the case of Arjun Singh...Versus...Mohindra Kumar and others, reported in 1964 Supreme Court 993 has no application because in that case the suit had proceeded ex-parte and the provision of Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure fell for consideration of the Supreme Court, whereas in the instant case the provision of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recall of witness is pressed into service. In an unreported judgment in Writ Petition No.4844/2006, decided on 17.10.2006, another Single Judge of this Court had permitted recall even though the case was closed for judgment and therefore, same course should be adopted by this Court in the present matter also.

(3) The term at any stage of the suit occurring in Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure means and includes the judgment and therefore, in tune with the judgments which are cited by learned Counsel, this Court should take the view that at any stage of the suit includes the stage of judgment. He cited following decisions :

(i) AIR 1984 DELHI 439 (Suresh Kumar...Versus...Baldev Raj).

(ii) 1991 Mh.L.J. 1359 (Mafatlal Engineering Industries Ltd Versus Mafatlal Engineering Industries Employees' Union and others).

(iii) Unreported judgment in Writ Petition No.4844/2006, decided on 17.10.2006.

(iv) 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 717 (Baburao s/o Sahebrao Deshmukh Versus Maharashtra Insecticides Limited, Akola and others).

(v) 2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 482 (Laxman Marotirao Paunikar Versus Keshaorao Rambhau Paunikar).

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that this Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court and there is no need to interfere with order under review particularly when the dictum laid down by the said Supreme Court judgment has been reiterated by another Three Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain...Versus...Archana Kumar and another, reported in 2005 (2) Mh.L.J. 839. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the review petition.

5. I have heard Counsel for the rival parties at length and also gone through the various decisions cited before me. At the outset, I must dispel the impression under which Advocate Shri Agnihotri is labouring. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, I had asked the learned Counsel for respondents what would be amount of cost if the writ petition were to be allowed. But at the same I did indicate that I will keep in mind the said option if ultimately I decide to allow the petition and closed the case for judgment. But then following the law laid down by Supreme Court, I decided to dismiss the petition. The Counsel for review petitioners should not have readily drawn inference as argued before me. During the course of hearing, Court and the Advocates express several things, but the deliberations in the Court should not be misutilized in this manner as submitted by Advocate Shri Agnihotri. But then I decided to hear Advocate Shri Agnihotri at length on this review petition to his satisfaction as ultimately no client or Advocate should feel that he was not heard.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties, I proceed to record my findings. It is not in dispute that the trial Court after receiving evidence of plaintiff on affidavit on 26.10.2007 adjourned the