The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying any doubts which may exist despite the evidence already recorded.

JUDGMENT

1. The order dated 16th March, 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (?the learned ADJ"), in CS DJ 579159-2016 (Raj Kumar Singhal v. Sunita Devi), which forms subject matter of challenge of challenge in the present petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, rejects an application filed by the petitioner, as the defendant in the suit, under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. Given the nature of the controversy in the present case, it is not necessary to advert to the dispute in the suit. Suffice it to state that, the learned ADJ deemed it appropriate to direct the defendant (the present petitioner) to lead evidence first. Accordingly, on 8th August 2018, affidavit in evidence was filed by the petitioner along with certain document, without, however, any accompanying application under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the CPC to take the said documents on record. No such application was filed by the petitioner even before the next date of hearing which was 31st October 2018.

3. Accordingly, on 31st October 2018, on which date there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner-defendant, the matter was passed over and taken up again at 12 Noon on the said date, by which time, too, no one appeared for the petitioner. A last opportunity was, therefore, granted to the petitioner, subject to costs of ? 3000/-, and the matter was adjourned to 23rd July 2019.

4. Again, on 23rd January 2019, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, the evidence of the petitioner was closed under Order XVII of the CPC.

5. The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC, which stands dismissed by the learned ADJ by the order dated 16th March 2022 under challenge.

6. The reasoning of the learned ADJ, in dismissing the petitioner's application, is to be found in para 5 to 7 of the impugned order, which read thus:--

'5. Perusal of the file would show that issues were framed in the present matter vide order dated 14.03.2018 and keeping in view the fact that signatures and thumb impression were admitted by the defendant, opportunity was given to the defendant to lead her evidence first. On 08.08.2018, affidavit alongwith photocopies and some documents was filed on behalf of defendant, however no application was attached for bringing said documents on record. It was stated on behalf of the Ld.Counsel for defendant that defendant was out of station hence affidavit of the defendant could not be prepared earlier and advance copy of the same was not supplied to the opposite party earlier. On 31.1 0.20 18, Ld.Counsel for defendant had not appeared and defendant was advised to file written application and pass over was given for 12 PM, but at 12 PM, none had appeared on behalf of defendant. On that day, last opportunity was granted to the defendant subject to cost of Rs. 3,000/- and matter was adjourned for 23.01.2019. On 23.01.2019, none had appeared on behalf of defendant for leading evidence and matter was proceeded under Order 17 of CPC and defendant evidence was closed.

6. Perusal of order dated 24.04.2019 would show that on that day, none had appeared on behalf of defendant and two witnesses of plaintiff were present and matter was proceeded under Order 17 CPC and both the witnesses were discharged and matter was adjourned for final arguments. On 10.07.2019, Ld.Counsels for both the parties were not available and application under Section 151 CPC for taking on record the documents and the present application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was moved on 27.08.2019. Ld.Counsel for defendant has withdrawn his application under section 151 CPC filed on 27.08.2019, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide recording of separate statement of Ld.Counsel for defendant.

7. Perusal of file would show that not a single document has been filed on behalf .of defendant substantiating her reason of nonappearance for herself as' well as for her Ld.Counsel. Su