The power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC should be used sparingly and not to fill up omissions in the evidence. It should be exercised to clarify doubts and should not become a protracting tactic.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This petition challenges the order dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Civil (Junior Division), Balangir in C.S. No. 12 of 2004. By the said order, the learned trial court rejected the application of the plaintiff to adduce rebuttal evidence after the evidence of the defendants was closed.

2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted the suit for realization of Rs.12,32,680/- with interest @18% impleading the opposite parties as defendants. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered contest and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Issues were settled. The plaintiff examined the witnesses. Thereafter the defendants examined the witnesses. After closure of the evidence from the side of the defendants, the plaintiff filed an application seeking liberty of the Court to adduce rebuttal evidence. It is stated that during course of examination of D.W.1, the personal file of the plaintiff was exhibited from the side of the defendants. In view of the same, the plaintiff intends to re-examine P.W.1 on the ground that he has not been afforded opportunity. The defendants filed objection stating therein that personal file of the plaintiff has been relied upon in the written statement. The plaintiff had knowledge about the said document. The plaintiff has also filed a petition for cause production of the original personal file of the plaintiff. D.W.1 has been thoroughly cross-examined. Thus, the petition is not maintainable. The learned trial court assigned the following reasons and rejected the same.

“After hearing the respective counsels for the parties this court peruses the case record, including the present petition and objection. From the case record, it appears that plaintiff file the present petition after closer of evidence from either party. Besides this, it is further appeared from the case record that the personal file of plaintiff marked as Ext.S was though relied by the defendant in his W.S, but the same has not exhibited from the side of defendant, until petition from the side of plaintiff for recall of the above document was filed on dated 11.07.14, on account of cross examined D.W.1 in this regard. So from the above, it is well cleared that the personal file of plaintiff is not only relied by the defendant in his W.S. but the same is with the knowledge of plaintiff since the day of filing of W.S. Hence in such circumstance, question comes whether in the present scenario plaintiff should get a chance to adduce rebuttal evidence by recalling P.W.1 on account of exhibiting the personal file of plaintiff at later stage. In this regard, this court is of opinion that plaintiff has very much knowledge about his personal file relied by the defendant in his W.S. That apart, in view of the above personal file plaintiff has already adduced his evidence. Again plaintiff by filing his petition on Dt:11.07.2014 call for the personal file from the custody of defendant and accordingly, cross examined D.W.1 thoroughly on this aspect. Considering the above aspect, this court is of opinion that the fact and circumstance of the cited decision is not applicable to the present case as because the present facts and circumstance in this case is totally different from the facts and circumstance of the cited decision. In the above view, this court is of the opinion that plaintiff has got enough opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence to the personal file, since the date of filing of W.S. by defendant. Hence, any further evidence on account of recall of P.W.1 from the side of plaintiff to rebut the document bears no merit in present circumstance.”

3. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, learned Advocate for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite parties.

4. Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that personal file of the plaintiff has been exhibited by the defendants. In view of the same, the plaintiff intended to re-examine P.W.1 since he has not previ