JUDGMENT : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 21.07.2016, vide which his application for summoning Mahendra as a witness was rejected. 2. It is contended by counsel for the defendant/petitioner that Mahendra was a witness to a Will, and therefore, was an important witness, who could not be produced as he was away from the town for more than fifteen years, which fact was also brought to the notice of the court by moving an application on 18.09.2014. It is also contended that though the burden to prove that the Will was forged is on the plaintiff, still the defendant/petitioner wants to produce the witness. 3. In support of his contentions, counsel for the defendant/petitioner has placed reliance on Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Pramod Kumar Jain, 2011(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1016 and Om Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) v. State of Karnataka, 2013(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1199. 4. Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has opposed the writ petition. His contention is that the defendant's evidence was closed on 16.08.2013 on his own request and the case was fixed for final arguments. On 15.09.2014, time was granted to file written arguments and the case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 20.09.2014. It is further contended that since the case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment, there was no occasion for moving an application for summoning a witness. It is also contended that the parties have filed their written arguments and only to delay the matter, the petitioner has moved the present application on 19.05.2016. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the impugned order. 6. The provisions contained in Order 18, Rule 17A CPC permitted a party to produce a witness, which it could not produce after exercise of due diligence. Order 18, Rule 17A CPC has been omitted with effect from 01.07.2002 and it is only under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC that now a court is empowered to recall and examine a witness. 7. It is further pertinent to note that the defendant/petitioner has not mentioned the said witness in the list of witnesses, which he is required to furnish before the court, and now at the fag end of the trial when the matter has been fixed for pronouncement of judgment, he cannot be permitted to reopen the case and summon a witness. It is further pertinent to note that the defendant/petitioner has not mentioned the said witness in the list of witnesses, which he is required to furnish before the court, and now at the fag end of the trial when the matter has been fixed for pronouncement of judgment, he cannot be permitted to reopen the case and summon a witness. More particularly, it is only the court, which is empowered to recall a witness. But in the present case, since the witness has not been examined, the question of recalling does not arise. Therefore, the rulings cited by counsel for the petitioner have no applicability to the facts of this case. Thus, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed.