D. RAJU, C. J.—The above revision has been filed by the defendant against the order dated 7.4.1997 passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Solan, in case No. 497/1 of 1990, whereunder the Court below has chosen to reject an application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for recalling the plaintiff, who was examined as PW-4, for being further cross-examined.

2. The petitioner in his application before the Court below has stated that in the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that he is the owner in possession or the land, the defendant-petitioner filed a written statement refuting the allegations levelled in the plaint and asserted that the defendant is the owner in possession and revenue entries made in this regard are correct. In the course of the trial of the suit, the plaintiff was said to have been examined as PW-4 and he seems to have claimed in the box that he is the owner in possession of the disputed land and planted fruit trees and not the defendant. The further claim of the petitioner in the application filed is that it is