C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) WHEN D. W. I was being cross-examined respondent filed LA. No. 201 of 2003 under Order 18, Rule 17 C. P. C. to recall D. W. I for further chief-examination to mark a document, which was allowed by the order under revision. Hence this revision.

( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since examination of the witness is not completed, question of his being recalling for further chief-examination does not arise. It is his contention that the Trial Court without keeping in view the fact that the document sought to be introduced in evidence through dw1 in chief-examination was not even received into Court, was in error in allowing the petition to recall DW1 for purpose of marking the said document.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that since the respondent sought permission to recall him only to mark a document and since petitioner can cross-examine the witness no prejudice can be said to have caused to the revision petitioner. The fact that the document intended to be marked though dw-1 by recalling him was not filed into court within the time stipulated, is not denied or disputed. Question of mar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document