The court has the discretion to recall a witness for the purpose of marking documents, but this discretion should be exercised judiciously and only when there is a good reason to do so.

ORDER :

1. Plaintiffs before the trial Court filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the correctness of Order dated 17.10.2017 of learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam in I.A. No. 1349 of 2017 in O.S. No. 428 of 2012. The respondents herein are the defendants before the learned trial Court.

2. O.S. 428 of 2012 is a suit filed by the three plaintiffs through their General Power of Attorney Holder against three defendants concerning 572 Sq. yds. of vacant site in S. No. 46/6 part of Maddilapalem Village within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. They claim that all the three plaintiffs along with Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are absolute owners of it and therefore their title shall be declared with a consequential relief of recovery of possession from 1st defendant and for a perpetual injunction restraining first defendant from interfering with possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs and also for damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the plaint schedule property and for costs.

3. First defendant put in her written statement. Trial commenced. During the pendency of recording of evidence plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1349 of 2017 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to recall PW-1 for the purpose of marking documents which were filed along with petition. General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiffs filed sworn affidavit in support of this petition stating that he had already given evidence as PW-1, got marked Exs.A1 to A27. That he had filed I.A. No. 135 of 2016 and I.A. No. 1510/2016 along with some more documents. Those two applications were allowed. Now those documents have to be marked. For that purpose he has to give evidence for the purpose of marking all these documents.

4. As against it, Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 1 filed a counter stating that the petitioners who mentioned about two earlier applications for documents are aware of the said fact and they should have taken steps for recall of PW-1 before the evidence of PW-1 was completed in chief and cross or atleast soon thereafter, or at least within a reasonable time thereafter. They did not do so. At the trial, they have been taking lot of time and coming up with one petition or other and with reference to the evidence of PW-2 he appeared for evidence for some time and did not appear for further cross-examination and then the petition is filed and for another witness by name Sri P. Narasinga Rao they filed another petition and so far like this these petitioners filed ten or eleven applications. Respondent No. 1 further stated that plaintiffs/petitioners earlier approached the Hon’ble Court stating that the Fast Track Court established for disposal of suits of senior citizens has not been vigilant and therefore they sought for a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit. Having sought for such relief from the Hon’ble High Court they have been protracting the litigation without any valid cause. It is further stated that the plaintiffs initially did not enter the witness box and their General Power of Attorney Holder gave evidence as PW-1 and thereafter plaintiffs moved a petition under Order XIII Rule 3(A) stating that PW-1 did not know certain facts personally and thereafter permission was sought for, for examining the first plaintiff as a witness on plaintiff side and that was allowed and he commenced the evidence as PW-2. When PW-1/General Power of Attorney Holder does not have personal knowledge of facts the prayer in the present petition is to recall PW-1. The petition is silent as to the facts that are intended to be proved through to PW-1 in the name of marking documents. Unless petitioners explain these facts and clear the ambiguity, the prayer cannot be accepted for recalling PW-1 and adducing documents as evidence does not serve any useful purpose. It is lastly mentioned that majority of the documents covered by interlocu