The central legal point established in the judgment is the cautious application of the power to recall witnesses under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, emphasizing bona fide applications and the relevance of public documents.

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

1. The appellant, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (in short "the Act") in dismissing the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The facts of the case is as follows:

(a) Based on the complaint of one Munusamy, a case was registered in Crime No. 6 of 2001 under Section of 5 of TNPID Act, against two persons, who were running the Financial Establishment by name "Sri Devi Finance" at Chingleput. During investigation, it was found that the first respondent's husband, by name, Umapathi Sivam was also a partner in the said financial establishment and that they have jointly defaulted a sum of Rs. 14,91,346/- from 30 depositors in 64 deposits. However, the original accused were absconding from the inception of the case and since their whereabouts were not known, the case was split up against them and the first respondent's husband herein and orders were passed declaring the absconding accused as Proclaimed Offenders. The case is still pending before the Court below. Pending trial, the property of Umapathi Sivam was attached vide G.O.Ms. No. 1023, Home (Courts IIA) Department dated 25.10.2006. Whereas in the split up case in C.C. No. 15 of 2002 against Umapathi Sivam, the Court below had acquitted him on 21.07.2011 on the ground that the alleged offence was not proved against him beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the first respondent herein filed an application in O.A. No. 4 of 2015 seeking to raise the attachment order passed. Pending the said application, the appellant herein, who is arrayed as R2, had filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall RW-2 and to file additional proof affidavit and to mark certain documents.

(b) The first respondent herein filed a counter stating that the documents sought to be marked are not relevant for deciding the issue in the main application. She had further stated that the evidence on both sides are over and that the matter was posted for further evidence on her side. At that stage, the appellant had filed the above application only for dragging on the issue without valid grounds.

(c) The court below, after hearing both sides, had dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.

3. Heard both sides.

4. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Court below by simply stating that the appellant has not specifically stated as to how the documents sought to be marked by it are relevant to decide the issue in the main O.A. No. 4 of 2015, had dismissed the application, without giving any valid reasons. The Court cannot simply decide that the documents sought to be marked by the appellant are not relevant documents, as the issue involves public interest and that the husband of the second respondent herein, who has filed an application to raise the attachment, has defaulted in paying the innocent depositors their hard earned money.

5. It is now well settled principle that the power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but such power is not to be invoked to fill up the lacunae in the evidence.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy, 2011 (3) LW 738 has extensively dealt with the powers of Court under Section 151 of the CPC to reopen the case and the powers of the Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 to recall a witness for any purpose. In para No. 16 of the said judgment, it has been held as follows:

"16. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the