The court has the discretion to recall a witness for further cross-examination under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, even at the instance of a party. A party has the right to call a witness on his behalf if the witness is material to give relevant evidence.

1. - This is a revision against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Udaipur dated 2.8.97 by which he rejected the two applications of the petitioner.

2. Civil Suit No. 113/93 is pending before learned Civil Judge for rent and eviction of the shop under the Rent-Control Act. The defendant petitioner had moved an application for amendment before the learned trial judge which was dismissed on 28.4.97. Thereafter the defendant moved two applications first being under Order XVIII Rules 2 and 17 read withs Section 151 CPC and other under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 read with Section 151 CPC. In the first application the defendant requested that Ugar Singh may be allowed to be further cross examined as the defendant was not knowing at the time of his earlier cross examination that Ugar Singh's wife Smt. Indira Sankhla was carrying business under the name and style of Unique Marbles ever since before 1989. This fact came to the knowledge of the defendant after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. It was further stated in the application that Smt. Indira Sankhla was a house wife and actually it was the plaintiff Ugar Singh who was carrying the business in her name. The suit has been filed on the personal and bonafide necessity and in case the defendant is able to prove that Ugar Singh was carrying on the business in the name of his wife, the bonafide need can be shattered. This application was disallowed by the learned trial court. In the second application under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 CPC it was requested that Smt. Indira Sankhla may be allowed to be summoned as a witness on behalf of the defendant and that some record from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Taxation, be also summoned so that the defendant may prove that the business under the name and style of M/s Unique Marbles was being carried in the name of Smt. Indira Sankhla and that the plaintiff himself was carrying on that business. Both these applications have been rejected by the trial Judge. Hence this revision.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the record.

4. So far as first application to recall Ugar Singh for further cross examination is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it was not necessary to recall him in the facts and circumstances of this case because when Ugar Singh was cross examined as PW-2 on 20.7.94 he was asked questions about Unique Marbles and he clearly stated that he was not sitting at the Unique Marbles. He has also submitted that it is for the court to call a witness for further cross examination under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC if the court may, at any stage of the suit, deems proper and recall and put such questions to him as the court thinks fit. According to him the party cannot request to recall a witness. But in this case in hand the circumstances are very peculiar. Defendant had made an application for amendment in the pleadings to the effect that there was a business named as Unique Marbles in the name of Smt. Indira Sankhla where Ugar Singh was himself carrying on the business and Smt. Indira Sankhla was a house wife. His amendment application was rejected by the learned trial Judge saying that when there was already issue No. 1 on record regarding reasonable and bonafide necessity there was no need to make an amendment as the defendant can very well refute the bonafide necessity by leading evidence as the pleadings are required to contain facts and not evidence. The defendant had moved an application under the relevant provision of law as well as under Section 151 CPC and in my view this application should have been allowed and the court could itself put the questions under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. It was a fit case in which the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the defendant. I am of the clear view that the trial court committed an error by refusing to recall Ugar Singh. Therefore, the order disallowing this appl