Order : NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J. This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in civil case No.05/2006, whereby the said Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. The plaintiff has also challenged the order dated 08.01.2018, whereby the review application filed by the plaintiff under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the respondent-defendant (for short “the defendant”) in which counsel for the plaintiff had partly cross-examined the defendant Santra Devi. Due to work in Rajasthan High Court, her advocate had gone to the High Court after the lunch and plaintiff sought time to cross-examine Santra Devi. In the absence of the advocate, plaintiff’s husband submitted some document. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that husband of the plaintiff no legal knowledge, so he could not cross-examine the defendant Santra Devi as per law. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC before the trial Court for recalling the witness Santra Devi for her cross-examination but trial court vide its order dated 15.11.2017 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff filed a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC but trial court vide its order dated 08.01.2018 dismissed the review application. So, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be given to the plaintiff for cross-examining the defendant Santra Devi and the plaintiff would not take further adjournments. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that ample opportunities were given to the plaintiff for cross-examination of the defendant but she had not cross-examined Santra Devi before the trial Court. The plaintiff’s husband had cross-examined the defendant Santra Devi. So no ground is made out for recalling the witness. So, the present civil writ petition filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendant. 7. The plaintiff’s husband had cross-examined the defendant Santra Devi. So no ground is made out for recalling the witness. So, the present civil writ petition filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendant. 7. It is an admitted position that post lunch, advocate of the plaintiff had not cross-examined Santra Devi. Learned counsel for the plaintiff had some work before the High Court. So, he proceeded to High Court. In the absence of the counsel, the husband of the plaintiff cross-examined the witness Santra Devi. So, in my considered opinion, husband of the plaintiff might have no legal knowledge regarding cross-examination. So, one more opportunity is required to be given to the plaintiff for cross-examination of defendant Santra Devi on cost. 8. Accordingly, petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The orders dated 15.11.2017 and 08.01.2018 passed by the trial Court are set aside and the trial Court is directed to grant only one opportunity to the plaintiff for cross-examination of Santra Devi, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant on or before the next date of hearing, failing which no opportunity shall be granted by the trial Court to the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant Santra Devi. 9. Pending application(s), if any, pending, stands disposed of.