##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-AS:6320

31-WP-10566-2016.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

rrpillai

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 10566 OF 2016

Sou. Sangita Rajaram Lokhande … Petitioner

Vs.

Shri Sahebrao Laxman Tambe and Ors.… Respondents

Mr. Sudhir Vinayak Sadavarte for the Petitioner.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATE : 4^th FEBRUARY 2026

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed by the original plaintiff to challenge

the order passed by the trial court allowing defendant no. 1’s

application to recall PW-1 for further cross examination.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

defendant no. 1 cannot be permitted to recall the witness for

further cross-examination for filling up the lacuna after

completing the cross-examination. He submits that there was

no reason to permit recalling of PW-1 for further cross

examination.

3. I have perused the papers of the petition. The trial court

has in detail referred to the dates on which the cross

Digitally signed

by

RAJESHWARI R RA AJ ME ES SH HWARI

RAMESH PILLAI 1/3

PILLAI Date:

2026.02.06

17:29:14 +0530

::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:09:01 :::

31-WP-10566-2016.docx

examination of PW-1 was completed. Plaintiff thereafter

recorded the evidence of two witnesses. However, they failed

to appear for cross examination, hence, on 4^th February 2015

their evidence was discarded. Subsequently on application

filed by the plaintiff by order dated 8^th September 2015

permission was granted to record their evidence. It is

defendant no.1’s contention that he could not cross-examine

the witness due to illness of his Advocate. Hence “No cross”

order was passed on 15^th September 2015. In the meantime

Advocate for defendant no. 1 expired on 26^th September

2015. Hence, new Advocate was appointed and the earlier

order of “No cross” order was set aside and the suit was

posted for further cross examination of PW-2 and PW-3.

4. In such circumstances an application was filed by

defendant no. 1 to recall PW-1 for further cross examination.

The trial court has considered the earlier orders and the

dates and events as recorded above, and, found it fit to

permit defendant no. 1 to recall PW-1 for further cross

examination. Though the plaintiff has examined two witness,

as per the observations of the trial court, their cross

examination is not conducted. Hence, I see no prejudice to

2/3

::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:09:01 :::

31-WP-10566-2016.docx

the plaintiff if defendant no. 1 is permitted to further cross-

examine PW-1. The impugned order permitting recall of

witness is well within the powers of the trial court in view of

Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(“CPC”).

5. Considering the facts of the case, the trial court has

permitted further cross examination on payment of costs to

the plaintiff. I see no illegality or perversity in the reasons

recorded in the impugned order warranting interference in

exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India.

6. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks extension of

the interim order passed by this court on 3^rd August 2017.

The interim order shall continue for four weeks.

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

3/3

::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:09:01 :::