Item- 31. sg 24-08-2026 Ct. 6 CO 2821 of 2026 Gajendra Kumar Raijada & Anr. Versus Vishnu Narayan Kashyap Ms. Sunita Agarwal …for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated 3rd July, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court in Title Suit no. 162 of 2014. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners sought to recall the PW-1 in order to cross-examine the said witness. Record reveals that 10.07.2025 was fixed for peremptory hearing of the suit. On that date the defendant/petitioner was absent without steps. On that date P.W. 1 was examined and the opportunity to cross examine was closed. Petitioner filed an application to recall the order dated 10.07.2025 on the ground that the learned advocate for the petitioner underwent a surgery and for such reason the petitioner could not cross examine the plaintiffs’ witness. The said application for recall stood rejected by an order dated 28.08.2025 and after observing that the defendant, in spite of being afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence, failed to do so, fixed 11.12.25 for evidence of defendant's witness as last chance. The order dated 28.08.2025 was not challenged 2 before any superior forum and the same attained finality. Petitioners thereafter filed the instant application to recall P.W.-1 for cross examination. The grounds taken in the instant application were raised in the earlier application which stood rejected by order dated 28.08.2025. After going through the materials on record, this Court finds that by an order dated 28th August, 2025, a similar application filed by the petitioners stood rejected and such order was not challenged before any superior forum. The said order already attained finality. Thus, the learned trial judge was right in not entertaining the subsequent application wherein the self same ground was raised and decided against the petitioner. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned and the same is accordingly disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)