BHUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS vs INDRA LAL ALIAS INDRA RAM

 Manoj K. Tiwari, J Â

Petitioners are the defendants in Original Suit No. 49 of 2011 (Indra Lal Vs Bhupal Singh & another) pending before learned Civil Judge (J.D.),

Haldwani, District Nainital. Petitioner had made one application for recalling a witness, namely, Patwari for his cross-examination. The said

application was rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 07.11.2017 against which he filed Civil Revision No. 102 of 2017 before learned 1st

Additional District Judge, Haldwani. The said revision was dismissed by learned revisional court vide order dated 20.02.2018. Â

By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders passed by the learned trial court as well as learned revisional

court.Â

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

Upon perusal of the orders passed by learned courts below, it is evident that cogent reasons have been given, for rejection of the application, made

by the petitioners. Â

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Vwlusamy Vs N. Palanisamy reported in 2011(2) ARC page 1 has held that the power

available under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the Court to clarify any

doubts it may have in regard to the evidence let by the parties. The said power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a

witness who has already been examined. It has further been held that Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable parties to

recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence, which could not be

produced when the evidence was being recorded.

Since the witness sought to be recalled have already been re-examined, therefore, the learned trial court was justified in rejecting petitioner’s

application in the order impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the matter.

The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Â