JUDGMENT :- By the impugned order, the trial court has allowed the application for issue of summons to the court commissioner whose report was on record at Exhibit 158. 2. The application calling the court 2008(5) ALL MR - Sept. commissioner as witness was opposed in the trial court as well present petition is pressed relying on judgment of this court in case of Doma s/o. Lalaj Chachera Vs. Executive Engineer, Gosekhurd Rehabilation Division and others, reported in 2007(1) B.C.J. 492 : [2007(1) ALL MR 157]. This judgment was also cited before the trial court. 3. The petitioner relies on the legal position namely, deletion of Rule 17 -A of Order XVIII in 2002, urging that this deletion will have to be given effect to, and therefore now the witness cannot be called. Based on this submission it is urged that present Writ Petition be dismissed. 4. On facts, it is seen that the trial court applied mind on facts and has recorded a finding in categorical terms that the defendant had for the first time in the trial denied the map drawn and furnished by the court commissioner on 30th November, 2007 and on this fact alone, it became necessary to call for the evidence of commissioner to prove the map drawn by him. Analysis of Legal Submissions 5. This court has noted that the deletion of Rule 17-A of Order XVIII is done in order to curtail abuse of the facility as a matter of right of a party to call for additional evidence often done in past. 6. It does not reveal by way of inference or direct prohibition that the inherent jurisdiction and the power of the court to call for witnesses whenever on facts 'such permission may be justified and justice warrants it, at any stage is not curtailed. 7. While right of party to call for further witnesses is brought under embargo, jurisdiction of the court to follow the very course is seen kept unaffected and consciously and deliberately so i.e. it is not barred specifically by any addition corresponding to deletion of Rule 17-A supra. 8. This court will have to keep in mind totality of scheme of Code of Civil Procedure. Attention of this court is drawn to Rule 27 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 8. This court will have to keep in mind totality of scheme of Code of Civil Procedure. Attention of this court is drawn to Rule 27 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This rule permits grant of permission to lead additional evidence even at the stage of appeal on certain conditions. The analogy of Rule 27 or Order XVI as to permissibility in circumstances of additional evidence will have to be kept in mind before employing the rigour emerging due to deletion of Rule 17-A of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Giving reasonable opportunity to prove a case is as crucial and as vital in the process of doing justice as is an opportunity of defence to an adversary. Giving such opportunity would therefore be a primary and assumed pillar and can on of adjudication in the endeavour of search of truth. Search of truth is the object, and not the part of procedural ritual. 10. In so far as reliance of the petitioner on reported judgment in case of Doma Lalaj's case supra is concerned, in contrast with what petitioner has argued, this court has in specific terms recorded in part 11 at page 499 and report as follows :- "When a party makes out justifiable ground for permitting it to lead additional evidence at a belated stage, the learned Labour Court/Tribunal would not be prevented from permitting it." 11. Thus, on facts of said Doma Lalaj's case [2007(1) ALL MR 157] supra, this court found that no such case was made out. This judgment therefore does not help the petitioner at all. ON FACTS OF THIS CASE 12. Even on facts of the case, it is the present respondent who for the first time, of late denied crucial document and has become instrumental to passing of impugned order, the order is thus every well justified on facts. CONCLUSIONS 13. This court therefore holds that in absence of incorporation of a barring provision thereby creating an embargo on the powers of the court to permit additional evidence bare deletion of Rule 17-A from Order XVIII does not by itself render the court devoid of powers to permit calling of witnesses or to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice. 14. In these premise, impugned order advances the ends of justice and therefore, no interference is called for. Petition is dismissed. 14. In these premise, impugned order advances the ends of justice and therefore, no interference is called for. Petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.