S.B. Shukre, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance upon the following cases :

(i). K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy, (2011) AIR SCW 2296.

(ii). Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, (1969) AIR SC 1267.

(iii). Md. Shahid Ibrahim & others vs. Mrs. Marium Iqbal & others, 2018 AIR Noc 821 (SIK.)

(iv). Atchut Upendra Raikar vs. Surya Upendra Raikar, (2006) 3 AIRBomR 366.

The learned Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the following cases :

(i). Gayathri vs. M. Girish, (2016) AIR SC 3559.

(ii). Prafulla s/o Narhar Wagh & Another. vs. Govind s/o Narayan Pimpalkar, (2017) 6 AllMR 22.

3. In the case of K.K. Velusamy, it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C. for short) can be invoked in appropriate cases to reopen evidence and/or to recall witnesses for further examination. In the case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice and a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. In the third case of Md. Shahid Ibrahim, the Sikkim High Court has held that reaching the by the Senior Counsel before scheduled time could not be a ground for refusing him to re-cross examine the witness.

4. There is no dispute about the principles of law cited in the above referred three cases and they would have to be borne in mind while deciding the question involved in the present case. The principle of law stated in the fourth case of Atchut Upendra Raikar, is that each and every case cited before the Court must be dealt with by the Court and if it is found that the ratio cannot be applied, the Court must give a summary of the distinguishing facts.

5. In the cases of Gayathri and Prafulla Narhar Wagh, it is held that when several opportunities are granted to a party to cross-examine a witness and those opportunities are not availed of, such party does not deserve to be granted any relief in the matter or otherwise it would amount to only delay in disposal of the suit. This principle would also have to be borne in mind.

6. In this case, the facts can very well be ascertained by going through the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court for recalling of the witness of the plaintiff for his additional cross-examination.

7. A perusal of the application (Exh.52) discloses that the main reason for which recalling of the witness has been sought is something unusual. It is stated in the application that there was no dispute in the fact that evidence was recorded and cross-examination by Advocate Shri G.B. Patil was taken and that Shri G.B. Patil cross-examined the plaintiff and his witness, but it is further stated that, to use the words of the respondent, "Shri G.P. Patil has crossed the plaintiff and his witness, but in his cross-examination he could not put the question which are necessary due diligence. Moreover, there is a family dispute, hence, family history should be come on record It is also submitted that the defendant is ill-health lady and she depend upon the Advocate. But, Senior Advocate could not attend the matter and junior attended the matter and cross question about the building i.e. suit building when constructed, who invested the amount the question could not be answered properly and, therefore, the Hon'ble Court recorded the sigma on the evidence of the plaintiff that, "witness cleverly avoided to give answer when construction was complete"."

8. These grounds stated in the application indicate that a blame has been put up on Shri G.B. Patil, Advocate who conducted cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witness and it is stated that necessary questions were not put to the witn