Courts may invoke their inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to recall a witness for further examination if the application is bona fide, necessary for substantial justice, and not intended to protract proceedings, provided the other party is adequately compensated with costs.

ORDER :

 RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.495 of 2024 in O.S.No.168 of 2017 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Peddapuram.

2. The Civil Revision Petitioners are the defendants and respondent is the plaintiff.

3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that in the suit filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction, when the matter stood posted for further evidence on plaintiff’s side, the defendants filed the petition vide I.A.No.495 of 2024 under Order-18, Rule-17 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’), praying the Court to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination on the ground that due to oversight some important aspects were not put to the witness and further cross-examination of the witness is essential to disprove the case of the plaintiff. The respondent/ plaintiff did not file any counter offering resistance to the relief sought in the petition. The learned trial Judge, as there was no representation for both parties, treated the arguments as heard and dismissed the petition, that there was no mention of specific aspects that were missed earlier and their requirement for the purpose of advancing substantial justice. The said dismissal order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Venkata Narayana, learned counsel, representing Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent.

5. Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed before the trial Court and the grounds of Civil Revision petition would contend that the purpose of recall of P.W.1 is for the purpose of putting a suggestion regarding execution of a disputed document but not to fill up any lacunae and unless P.W.1 is recalled the ambiguity regarding execution of the disputed document would persist and result in incomprehensive adjudication of the lis. He would further contend that even though the respondent did not offer resistance by filing counter and even without hearing the counsel on record the learned trial Judge in an utter haste dismissed the petition, though no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in allowing the petition and moreover the respondent did not file any counter opposing recall of P.W.1 and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, Sri Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for respondent, would contend that the right to put questioning to the witness recalled under Rule-17 is given only to the court and under that Rule , a witness cannot be recalled at the instance of a party for the purpose of examining, cross-examining or re-examining, and that rule is not intended to serve such purpose and therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision in Shubhkaran Singh vs. Abhayraj Singh & ors., 2025 INSC 628

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The application for recall of P.W.1 has been dismissed by the trial court for the reason that the affidavit does not specify the purpose for which P.W.1 was sought to be recalled and merely stating oversight cannot be considered as sufficient ground.

9. Admittedly, except stating that due to oversight some important aspects were not put to P.W.1, the purpose for which P.W.1 is sought to be recalled was not mentioned in the affidavit filed before the trial Court. However, in the grounds of this revision, it is mentioned that the purpose of recall is to confront P.W.1 regarding execution of disputed document.

10. In Shubkaran Singh (supra 1), the H