Ratio
Provision for recalling a witness is not intended to enable the parties for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded but is intended to enable the Court to get clarification on any issue or doubt.

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decretal orders dated 29.10.2011 made in I.A.Nos.871 and 872 of 2011 in O.S.No.346 of 2009 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Erode, in and by which the trial Court dismissed the applications for reopening of plaintiff side evidence.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, some important facts were omitted to be explained during the chief-examination of P.W.1 and hence P.W.1 has to be recalled. The said fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, stating that already plaintiff's side witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the respondent and by filing the applications, the petitioner wants to fill up the lacuna which cannot be permitted.

3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following:

(i) a decision of this Court reported in 2002 (3) CTC 92 in the case of P.S.Pandian vs. Annai Velanganni Films, Chennai and another

"10. The phrase "good cause" employed under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C., no doubt, requires adequate, sound and genuine reasons, but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case, as the good cause or sufficient case, as the case may be, is intended only to ensure the bona fide of the parties who approach the Court for production of the documents at a subsequent stage. Therefore, it is suffice for the Court to find out whether the claim of a person who approaches the Court for production of the documents at a subsequent stage, lacks bona fide or suffers from mala fide. In either case, the test to be adopted is whether the documents relied upon by the party are required to meet the ends of justice.

11. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Court, while exercising the power conferred under Order XIII Rule 2, C.P.C., should exercise the same liberally, to meet the ends of justice. Similarly, the same yardstick is equally applicable while exercising the power conferred under Order XVIII Rule 17, C.P.C., because, the said Rule provides for examination of witness only to meet the ends of justice, by enabling the authorities to substantiate their claim. Hence, both the provisions cannot be interpreted rigidly."

(ii) a Supreme Court decision reported in 2003 (3) CTC 315 in the case of Baljeet Singh vs. Harliveleen

"5. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the proceedings are matrimonial proceedings pending since 2001, we are of the view that an opportunity is to be given to the appellant to cross-examine the respondent-wife, one witness the mother examined on her behalf. Since the respondent is made to come to this Court for no fault of her, she needs to be compensated in terms of money. Under these circumstances, we dispose of this appeal by the following order:

6. The impugned order is set aside. The appellant is given opportunity to cross-examine the respondent and her witness on the next day of hearing, subject to the appellant-husband paying a sum of Rs.3,000/- as costs to the respondent-wife. The appellant shall not take further adjournment in the proceedings and shall go on with the proceedings on the given date. We expect the Trial Court to dispose of the matrimonial case pending before it as expeditiously as possible."

(iii) yet another Supreme Court decision reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 in the case of K.K.Velusamy vs. N.Palanisamy

"16. Neither the trial court nor the High Court considered the question whether it was a fit case for exercise of discretion under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code. They have not considered whether the evidence sought to be produced would either assist in clarifying the evidence led on the issues or lead to a just and effective adjudication. Both the courts have mechanically dismissed the application only on the ground that the matter was already at the stage of final arguments and the applic