ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the co fair and decreetal orders, dated 07.12.2020 passed in I.A.Nos.12, 13 and 14 of 2020 in L.A.O.P.No.68 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, filed under Section 151 CPC for reopening the case, for recalling P.W.1 under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and for reception of documents under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The revision petitioners are the respondents 2 and 3 in the Interlocutory Applications in I.A.Nos.12 to 14 of 2020 as well in the original petition in L.A.O.P.No.68 of 2002. The Respondents 1 to 4 herein/claimants have sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the land acquired for the revision petitioners.

3. It is evident from the records that the fifth respondent has acquired 674.78 Hectares of lands in Therku Nanguneri Village, Rajakalmangalam Village, Puliyur Kurichi Village of Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District, for setting up of Hitech Industrial Park, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The claim of the respondents 1 to 4 and others were taken on file in L.A.O.P.Nos.68, 79 and 80 of 2002. After enquiry, the learned Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, has passed common award, dated 31.08.2003. Aggrieved by the said award, the first respondent/Land Acquisition Officer has preferred appeals in A.S.(MD) Nos, 191, 192 of 2008 and A.S.No.83 of 2009 before this Court. Since the revision petitioners 1 and 2 were not impleaded, this Court has passed an order, dated 08.05.2019, setting aside the award, dated 31.08.2003 and remanded the cases back to the trial Court for fresh consideration, after impleading the revision petitioners as respondents and after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties. After the remand, evidence was adduced by both the sides and thereafter, when the cases are pending for arguments, the respondents 1 to 4/claimants have filed the above three applications, one in I.A.No.12 of 2020, under Section 151 CPC to reopen the case; 2nd petition in I.A.No.13 of 2020, under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall P.W.1; and the third petition in I.A.No.14 of 2020, under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC for reception of additional evidence. After enquiry, the learned Additional District Judge, has passed the impugned order, dated 07.12.2020, allowed all three petitions. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents 2 and 3 in the interlocutory applications as well as in the original petition have preferred the present revision.

4. Before entering into further discussion, it is time to refer the legal position. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vadiraj Nagappan Vs. Sharachandra Prabhakar reported in 2009 (4) SCC 410 and the relevant passages are reproduced hereunder;

“25.In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of witnesses, the main purpose of the said Rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. .... .... ....

28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.

29. It is now well settled 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 as indicated hereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear an