The court has the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC to reopen a trial and allow a party to cross-examine a witness or adduce further evidence, even after the trial has been closed and posted for arguments, if the circumstances warrant it.

( 1 ) THIS petition is for revising the order passed by the 3rd Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I. A. No. 765 of 1964 in O. S. No. 93 of 1963, filed by the defendants.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for determination of the question in controversy may briefly be stated. The suit was filed on the foot of a promissory note, and the defence was that it was not executed in the circumstances stated by the plaintiff, and that it was not supported by consideration. Naturally, the plaintiff had to prove execution, and the defendant had to establish want of consideration. Appropriate issues were framed. On 8-4-1964, the trial of the suit commenced, when P. W. 1 was examined and the evidence on his side was closed, reserving his right to adduce rebuttal evidence on the issue relating to absence of consideration. After some adjournments, the suit was posted to 4-7-1984 for the evidence of the defendants. On that day, the plaintiff and his Advocates were absent, but the Advocate for the defendant was present with only one witness, who was examined in chief. On that day, the case was passed over once because of the absence fit the plaintiffs Advocates. Even by the time the chief-examination of D. W. 1 was over, the plaintiffs advocates did not turn up, and a petition was filed for adjournment by some advocate, but it was dismissed. The Advocate for the 1st defendant represented that he wanted to examine one more witness who had to be summoned, but who was not summoned for that day, i. e. , 4-7-1964. That request was also not granted, and the City Civil Judge thereupon noted that the defendants evidence was closed and the suit was posted for arguments.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs advocate then filed the present application. 1. A. No. 765 of 1964, explaining me unavoidable circumstances in which both the advocates for the plaintiff were absent, and praying for reopening of the trial of the suit, and giving a chance to the plaintiff to cross-examine D. W. 1, and an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence. This application was allowed by the trial Court on the ground that in the circumstances it saw no objection for reopening trial of the suit on payment of Rs. 10 by way of costs to the defendant.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, revision petition was filed.

( 5 ) SRI Suryaprakasam, the learned counsel for the 1st defendant-petitioner, contended that the order reopening the suit and giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine D. W. 1 and lead rebuttal evidence is- an erroneous, and illegal exercise of jurisdiction, and that the circumstances of the case also did not warrant it. He also contended that in view of Order 18, Rule 17 C. P. C. , Section 151 C. P. C. could not be invoked. The argument of the learned counsel was that Order 18 Rule 17 provides for a situation like the present one, and Section 151 cannot be invoked. To my mind, this argument cannot be accepted. Order 18, Rule 17 is in the following terms:"the Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. "a close reading of this Rule makes it obvious that the right under that Rule to put questions at any stage of a suit, or recall any witness for that purpose, is given to the Court. The Court can put questions to the witness re-called, and no cross-examination is ordinarily allowed upon the answers to the questions put by the Judge without leave. The right to act under this Rule is not restricted to the Court on its own motion, but may be exercised at the instance of a party. Ii cannot, therefore, be said that an opportunity to a party to re-call any witness for the purpose of examining, cross-examining or re-examining is governed by Order 18, Rule 17 C. P. C. I, therefore, hold that if circumstances warrant, an opportunity to a party to re-call a witness for examining, cross-examining or re-examinin