ORDER :

(Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.)

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order, dated 27.03.2023, passed in I.A.No.174 of 2023 in O.S.No.231 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, whereby the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC'], to recall DW1 for further cross-examination was allowed.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the Respondent.

3. The Petitioners are the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.231 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The said Suit was filed by the Respondent herein, who is the Plaintiff in the said Suit, for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note, dated 10.06.2018. After closure of the evidence of the Plaintiff, the Suit was posted for evidence of Defendants. The Husband of 2nd Defendant was examined as DW1 and he was cross-examined by the Plaintiff. The petition was filed on the same day to send the Suit promissory note for examination to hand writing expert with the contemporaneous signatures on the other documents. The said petition was allowed and the expert opinion was received. Thereafter, the Plaintiff has filed a petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC, to recall DW1 for further cross-examination stating that due to non availability of the Plaintiff, certain questions could not be put to DW1. The said petition came to be allowed by the impugned order recalling DW1 for further cross-examination.

4. Aggrieved thereby the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Defendants assailing the legal validity of the same.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Plaintiff did not state as to what are the material aspects on which DW1 is to be further cross-examined and his petition is too vague and the trial Court without considering the same, as to what are the material aspects on which DW1 is required to be further cross-examined has erroneously allowed the petition by recalling DW1 for the purpose of cross-examination.

6. This Court finds considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. As can be seen from the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC, in the trial Court, except stating that DW1 is to be further cross-examined on some material aspects, it is not clarified or stated as to what are the said material aspects on which DW1 is to be cross-examined. So, it is undoubtedly a vague plea taken in the petition by the Plaintiff. When DW1 was already cross-examined by the Plaintiff and when the Plaintiff intends to further cross-examine DW1, he has to explain what are the material aspects on which the further cross-examination is required. The same is conspicuously absent in the petition. So, DW1 cannot be recalled for further cross-examination on such vague plea.

7. Further, it is stated in the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC as the Petitioners could not give sufficient instructions to their Counsel that the said material aspects are not touched in the cross-examination of DW1. The said ground is not a valid ground to allow the petition to recall a witness for further cross-examination.

8. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Nagumothu Sriharinath Vs. Nagumothu Vani , 1997(5) ALD 237 held that, recalling a witness for the purpose of further cross-examination on the ground that the counsel at the time of cross-examination was not properly briefed, cannot be permitted. The said judgment squarely applies to the present facts of the case. The trial Court erred in distinguishing the