The power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is intended to clarify doubts and not to fill omissions in evidence or to allow for further elaboration on left-out issues.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant under article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the propriety and legality of the order dated 01.07.2022 in I.A.No.01 of 2022 in O.S.No.154 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

3. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit before the lower Court.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.6,91,667/- from the defendant pleading inter alia, that the defendant had borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- on 01.07.2011, Rs,3,00,000/- on 01.09,2012 and Rs.50,000/- on 10.09.2012 and executed three suit promissory notes, but did not repay the pronote debts despite several demands and inspite of the legal notice dated 10.09.2013 and so he was constrained to file the suit.

5. The defendant filed written statement denying the borrowal of the debts and alleging that the suit promotes are forged and fabricated.

6. The trial in the suit commenced and the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and PW.2 witnesses as PWs2 and 3 and after the closure of his evidence and when the suit was posted for the evidence of the defendant, I.A.No.1 of 2022 is filed by the defendant under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking recall of PW.1 for further Cross-examination.

7. The plea of the defendant in the petition is that he engaged one Ramesh as his counsel and since he fell sick he engaged another counsel, but that counsel without taking any instructions from him cross-examined PW.1, and that when the suit was coming up for cross-examination of PW.2, he came to know that his counsel had not cross-examined PW.1 properly by eliciting material facts and that he had not cross-examined the witness as per the pleadings in respect of the suit pronotes, which are forged and created by the plaintiff.

8. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter opposing the plea for recall of PW.1 for further cross-examination contending that if PW.1 was not cross-examined with reference to the pleadings the petition to recall PW.1 should have been filed even before proceeding to cross-examine PWs.2 and 3 and not at the stage when the case was posted for the evidence of the defendant.

9. The trial Court after hearing both the counsel and considering the material on record by the impugned order dismissed the said petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD:

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decision of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. between Rasool Bee v Fathima Bee, died and others, 2004(2) ALD 362 contends that the impugned order has to be set aside and PW.1 needs to be recalled for further cross-examination.

11. Refuting that contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, argued that there are no grounds to recall PW.1 and that the petition is filed only to drag on the matter.

12. Para 2 of the affidavit filed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.154 of 2013 reads as under:

“That the respondents/plaintiffs filed a false suit against me respondent/defendant. As such I am contesting the suit by filing of my written statement. The above case is posted today for my evidence. Further it is submitted that previously I engaged one Maturi Ramesh Advocate and he fell sick and the another counsel without intimation of the progress of the case and without taking instructions and behind back of me the cross examination completed the PW.1 and subsequently I engaged another advocate Sri K.Ravinder Reddy and by that time PW.1 cross was completed and posted for PW.2 cross examination. Today it was brought to my notice the cross examination of PW.1 done by my previous counsel was not properly elicited to brought true facts through said witness since my previous counsel did not take any instructions from me while cross examination of PW.1. Further it is submitted that my previous counsel did not put questions as per my pleading with regard to the alleged documents which are forge