JUDGMENT :

Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’) has approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), assailing order dated 30.9.2020, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Shimla, in Case No.9-1 of 17/15, whereby application filed by defendant, under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, for recalling the witness, has been dismissed.

2. Present petition has been filed on the ground that, by passing the impugned order, the Court below, in fact, has decreed the suit by giving detailed finding on merit of the suit, instead it ought to have limited its finding to the merits of the application, and it has also ignored the fact that the documents sought to be put to plaintiff, by way of cross-examination, are very relevant for just adjudication of the case and such necessity warrants to take on record such documents and put the same to the plaintiff for the purpose of cross-examination, at any time, subject to provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. It has been contended that there is no delay in placing on record the documents, existence whereof came in the knowledge of defendant on 28.3.2019 and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that placing on record such documents was intentionally delayed or the same was a tactic for prolonging the trial. According to the defendant, the Sale Certificate, issued under Rule 90(15) qua Property No.245/4, as was required to be adduced, is a relevant document and the plaintiff is required to be confronted with the recitals of the same, but the Court below has completely ignored such necessity for just adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. Lastly, it has been contended that the document proposed to be placed on record in evidence is main document, having bearing on the claim of plaintiff, being Sale Certificate, and, therefore, it was required to be brought on record by the plaintiff but on failure of the plaintiff, the defendant intends to place and prove such document on record through cross-examination of plaintiff, but the trial Court has committed an irregularity by rejecting prayer of the defendant.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised even after closure of the evidence, at any stage, by recalling any witness, who had been examined, for complete and final adjudication of the case to advance the cause of justice.

4. Plaintiff has opposed the claim of the defendant on the ground that the defendant is adopting all techniques for prolonging adjudication and determination of the suit as the defendant has availed nine opportunities to conclude its evidence and, to further prolong the proceeding, at the time of final opportunity granted for arguments, has moved application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC just to reset the clock of the case back, despite the fact that on earlier occasion also right to file defence/ written statement on behalf of defendant was struck down by the Court on account of unexplained delay, and at that time on interference of this High Court three weeks additional time to file written statement was granted to the defendant on 31.3.2016 and now once again defendant is trying to invoke jurisdiction of this Court to prolong the matter.

5. It has also been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that document, proposed to be placed on record in evidence, is neither original document nor relevant for adjudication of the controversy involved in the present case and, therefore, for the reasons assigned by the trial Court, passing of the impugned order has been justified.

6. To substantiate the plea taken by the plaintiff, learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (Dead) through LRs v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410; and a decision of this High Court in Tilak Raj v. Rajinder Sood, (1026) ILR(HP) 1580.

7. It is settled law of the land that in exercise of power under Section 115 CPC, the