An order allowing recall of a witness is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Tarun Chatterjee, J.: In my view, there is no merit in this revisional application and therefore I am not, inclined to entertain it even at the stage of moving this revisional application. The reasons are as follows:-

2. This revisional application is directed against an Order being Order No. 82 dated 17th of April, 1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Alipore in Original Suit No.6. of 1983. By the impugned order the Additional District Judge, First Court at Alipore allowed an application filed by the plaintiff/opposite party for re call of P. W. 3 and also permitting further cross examination of P.W. 3 and other witnesses to be examined. It appears that the impugned order' has been passed by the Trial Court in a suit for grant of probate of a will executed by the deceased father of the opposite party Sukumar Ranjan Barik. It is true that evidences were taken and taking of evidence was closed by the Trial Court. At that stage a petition was filed by the opposite party for recalling PW. 3 and for permitting him to cross examine PW 3 and to adduce further evidence. The learned Judge by the impugned order has taken into consideration the entire materials on record and on such considerations has given due reasons for grant of such reliefs to the plaintiff/opposite party. Mr. Guha, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, however challenges the aforesaid impugned order mainly on the ground that if such permission is granted to the plaintiff/opposite party to recall PW.3 and to permit the plaintiff/opposite party to cross examine him any further that will prejudice the defendant/petitioner. In support of this contention Mr. Guha relied on three decisions, one of a learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court, another of the Division Bench of this Court and the last one of the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court decision is reported in AIR 1992 Bom page 406 (Steelage Industries Limited and another vs. Shrimati Chander 8agal). The Allahabad High Court decision is reported in 1990 Cr. LJ NOC 165 (All) (Charan Singh vs. State of U. P.) and the Division Bench decision of this Court is reported in AIR 1994 Cal 224 (Lilabati Debi alias Lilabati Sarma vs. Messrs Jute and Company Limited.) In my view, the aforesaid three decisions cited at the bar on behalf of the petitioner cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of this case. So far as 1990 CLJ NOC 165 (All) is concerned it appears that the said decision was made in connection with a criminal case and that there was an observation of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High court that the recalling of witness by the prosecution for cross examination one month after discharge of witnesses was not proper. It is difficult to understand how the principles laid down in a criminal case which is governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be made applicable in a case where the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure involved. Apart from that the aforesaid Single Bench decision was nowhere said that under no circumstances recalling of witnesses cannot be permitted. Only it observed that in the facts and circumstances of that case that recalling of a witness was not proper because such a prayer was made after one month after discharge of witnesses. So far as Division Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1994 Cal 224 is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in the facts and circumstances of that case held that the Trial Court having failed to consider the prejudice that would be caused to the aggrieved party by permitting one party to adduce further evidence and to cross examine the witnesses, the application filed by the defendant in that suit was liable to be rejected. (Emphasis supplied).

It will also appear from the judgment of the Division Bench that such a prayer was rejected by it also on the ground that the petitioner in that revisional application had suffered prejudice by the order al