The power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC should be sparingly used in exceptional circumstances and only if there are valid and sufficient reasons for the recall of witnesses. Costs should be imposed to compensate for any delay caused by the recall.

JUDGMENT

B.S. Bhanumathi, J. - This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the orders, dated 26.03.2021, passed in I.A. No. 173 of 2021 in O.S. No. 204 of 2015 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

2(a). The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of an alleged fabricated pronote and the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1. On the side of the defendants, DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and certain documents were marked. During the course of trial, while examining PW1, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has not put some of the relevant questions with regard to the execution of the pronote and the signature on it. Hence, the present application has been filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking to recall PW1 for the purpose of further cross-examination.

2(b). The respondent/plaintiff filed counter denying the petition averments and contending that the chief affidavit of the plaintiff was filed on 05.09.2018. The counsel for the defendant, by name Sri P.V.S. Naveen Prasad, cross-examined the plaintiff on 09.07.2019. Another counsel of the defendant, by name, Sri I. Guruswamy has further cross-examined the plaintiff and put some questions regarding the pronote. Thus, two different counsels cross-examined the plaintiff and the present petition, after completion of cross-examination of the plaintiff, at this belated stage, shows the mala fide intention of the defendant. The counsels for the defendant cross-examined plaintiff/PW1 as well as PWs. 2 & 3 and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Defendants' evidence was also closed. This application is nothing but an attempt to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the defendant. The power of the Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is discretionary and has to be exercised with great care and only exceptional circumstances. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. The trial Court, on a consideration of facts and circumstances of the case and to give one more opportunity to the petitioner and to arrive at a just conclusion, by order, dated 26.03.2021, allowed the petition subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- payable by the defendant to the plaintiff on or before 06.04.2021.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff is before this Court. In the grounds of revision, while reiterating the case pleaded, it is mainly contended that the only averment made by the respondent in the affidavit filed in support of the application is that 'while examining PW1, the counsel of the defendant has not put some of the relevant questions with regard to execution of the pronote and with regard to signature on the pronote' and that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is not meant for filling up the lapses and lacunae in the evidence of the witness.

5. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Chetluru Sreenivas, the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The main ground for seeking recall of the witness is that while examining PW1, the counsel for the petitioner has not put some relevant questions with regard to execution of the disputed promissory note and the signature thereon.

7. The petition was mainly opposed on the ground that the reason stated is very vague and wide and such request cannot be allowed to fill laches and lacunae in the evidence already led since the discretion under Order XVIII Rule 17 cannot be exercised in a routine course, but must be sparingly used in exceptional circumstances.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff relied on the decision in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (Dead) through LRs v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 410, wherein it was held that the discretion under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application fi