JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

1. This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaito rejecting an application filed for recalling witness PW-4 by the petitioner.

2. Respondent No.l filed civil suit bearing No.CS/16/2018 titled as Dr. Harish Chander Vs. Vijay Bhadari etc. against the petitioner seeking decree of recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- as damages/compensation for causing injuries to the plaintiff.

3. The suit was contested by the petitioner. Dr. Avtar Singh was examined as PW-5. His examination in chief was recorded on 15.07.2023. His cross-examination was deferred on the request made by counsel for the defendants. He was cross-examined on 24.07.2023.

4. Thereafter the present application was moved for recalling PW-5 Dr. Avtar Singh for further cross-examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that Dr. Avtar Singh has been in fact examined as PW-5 in the Civil Suit. He was examined as PW-4 in the criminal trial. Inadvertently in the Civil proceedings before this Court and in the application he was wrongly referred to as PW-4 instead of PW-5. Thus in the present revision petition the issue involved is with respect to recalling of Dr. Avtar Singh, PW-5.

5. Present application was moved for recalling Dr. Avtar Singh for further cross-examination. The material pleadings raised in the application read as under :-

'2. That PW5, Dr. Avtar Singh was examined, but most material questions could not have put to him, he could not have been confronted with his statement with bed head ticket which was prepared at the time of admission of examination of Dr. Harish Cahnder, when injuries on person of Dr. Harish Chander was noted down in the bed head ticket and there are other material questions, which could not have been put to PW-5, Dr. Avtar Singh at the time of his cross examination, which are very essential for the just decision of the case.

3. That one criminal case is also pending regarding the alleged injuries on the person of Dr. Harish Chander and in that case, Dr. Avtar Singh is to be confronted.

4. That he is expert witness so question regarding injuries on the person of Dr. Harish Chander are to be verified from the PW5, Dr. Avtar Singh.

5. That the aforesaid case is preliminary stage and the case is not reached on final stage, so if the application is allowed for recalling PW-5, Dr. Avtar Singh it will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff.

6. That if this Hon'ble Court 'will not allow the present application to recall the abovesaid witness, then it will cause huge and irreparable loss to the defendants which will never be compensated. '

6. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the application has been filed to recall a witness who was cross-examined after giving ample opportunity to the defendant-applicant. It was further reasoned by the Trial Court that no cogent explanation has been put-forth to seek recalling of the witness or cross-examination. Provisions as contained under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC cannot be invoked to fill up the lacuna. Trial Court further held that the Civil suit was pending since 2018 and the application was moved merely to delay the trial and dismissed the application.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that some important aspects were omitted to be put to the witness during the cross-examination of PW-5. The same are relevant for the adjudication of the present case. Thus it is a fit case where Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner seeking recalling of Dr. Avtar Singh, PW-5.

8. Per contra Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.l submits that the Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion as it is settled law that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC can be invoked only to remove the confusion if any and not to fill-up the lacunas. In order to substantiate hi