ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner seeking to cross-examine DW-4 - Anandilal, after he was re-examined, has been rejected. 2. In a suit for partition filed by the petitioner, a Will was setup by the defendant and DW-4 Anandilal was examined as attesting witness. 3. After his examination, application was filed by defendant seeking his re-examination, which was allowed by the Court by its order dated 03.04.2017. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing S.B.C.W.P. No. 5540/2017, which petition was dismissed by this Court on 25.04.2019. 5. Whereafter the re-examination took place, in which, certain statements were made by DW-4 Anandilal. 6. After the statement was recorded, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking to cross-examine said DW-4 - Anandilal again on the count that leading question was asked in re-examination and that whatever was stated in the cross-examination was sought to be resiled, which could not have been permitted. 7. The application was opposed by the plaintiff and the trial court by its order dated 01.11.2019, came to the conclusion that no case in this regard was made out and rejected the application. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the Court was not justified in rejecting the application, inasmuch as, the nature of statement made in the cross-examination is not permissible and, therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to cross-examine the witness. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order impugned. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. When the permission for re-examination was granted and the petitioner challenged the order before this Court by filing S.B.C.W.P. No. 5540/2017, the specific contention and/or purpose for re-examination was noticed by the Court in para 3 of its order, which reads as under:- "The bone of contention in the matter is that during pending of the suit, the respondents opposed partition on count of a Will in their favour. The petitioner objected the veracity of the said Will. DW-4 Anandi Lal, during his cross examination, has deposed that at the time when he attested the Will, the signature of testator, Laxmi Lal was not there. The petitioner objected the veracity of the said Will. DW-4 Anandi Lal, during his cross examination, has deposed that at the time when he attested the Will, the signature of testator, Laxmi Lal was not there. The defendant-respondent filed an application under Sections 137 & 138 of the Indian Evidence Act for re-examination of DW-4 Anandi Lal claiming that on a conjoint reading of examination and cross examination, it is clear DW-4 Anandi Lal wanted to depose that the signatures of testator were made in front of him. The said application was allowed vide the impugned order passed by the learned court below." 11. Once the purpose of re-examination was already before the Court and despite that the re-examination was permitted and DW-4 has not said anything beyond that, the permission sought by the petitioner seeking to cross-examine the witness after the said statement has no basis. 12. The plea raised that leading question was put in re-examination also apparently has no basis as no objection was apparently raised during re-examination. 13. In view thereof, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. However, the plea sought to be raised regarding resiling of the statement made in cross-examination by way of re-examination by DW-4, it is always open for the petitioner to make submissions in this regard before the trial court, which would examine the said aspect and its implication in accordance with law. 14. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.