The court's discretionary power to recall witnesses under Section 151 of CPC must be exercised judiciously to ensure justice is served, particularly when new evidence is presented.

Judgment :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-12) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda, vide which, the application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been allowed. The order has been assailed on the grounds that the Court has not exercised the jurisdiction properly and that recalling a witness for further examination is not a matter of right but discretion vested in the Court to be exercised judiciously.

2. I have heard the arguments and gone through the file carefully.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the order contending that it is settled law that recalling a witness for further cross-examination is not a matter of right but discretion vested in the Court to be exercised judiciously, to meet the ends of justice. Whereas, in the present case, the same has been exercised arbitrarily, so the impugned order is required to be set aside and petition may be allowed. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the Court below has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it properly and in the interest of justice for ensuring proper justice to the parties and therefore prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

4. I have gone through the record carefully.

5. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda vide impugned order has allowed the recall of the plaintiff for further cross-examination. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:-

'5. I have considered the rival submissions. The power to recall a witness for further cross-examination is not a matter of right but a discretion vested in the Court to be exercised judiciously to meet the ends of justice. The paramount consideration is whether a sufficient and cogent reason has been shown for not putting the proposed question(s) during the original cross-examination. In the present case, the defendant asserts that the MCO and the plaintiff's signature thereon is a subsequent discovery. The authenticity of a consumer's consent on an MCO can be a decisive factor in a dispute concerning the meter and subsequent billing. The question the defendant seeks to put pertains to a document that is allegedly central to the defendant's version of events. To deny an opportunity to confront the witness with a document that is claimed to be vital would be to shut out a potentially crucial line of defense, which would be contrary to the principles of a fair trial. The interest of justice demands that all relevant evidence be brought on record for a just decision.

6. The objections regarding maintainability, delay and estoppel, while noted, are overruled in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The quest for truth and a complete adjudication of the real matter in controversy must prevail over technicalities. The plaintiff can be adequately compensated by imposing costs for the time spent and the delay caused'

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy, 2011 (11) SCC 275, Ram Rati vs. Mange Ram (Dead) through LR, 2016 (11) SCC 296, Bagai Construction vs. Gupta Building Material Store, 2013 (14) SCC 1, by this Court in Nisha Sharma vs. Pritam Singh and others, 2018 SCC Online P&H 4949, M/s Shoe Palace and Another vs. Sham Lal and Others, 2016 SCC Online P&H 1505, Gurmeet Singh and Another vs. Charanjit Kaur and Another, 2016 SCC Online P&H 1260 and Krishan Baldev vs. Dev Singh, 2012 SCC Online P&H 2358. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy (supra) and of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pushpa Devi and Another vs. Pawan Sehrawat and Others., 2024 SCC Online Del 1666. Most of the authorities relied upon by the petitioner pertains to provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC with regard to power of