Item No. 2

15.12.2025 Court. No. 6 GB C.O. 3042 of 2025 Smt. Chhabi Bhattacharjee Vs.

Smt. Kakali Mukherjee & Ors.

Mr. Siva Prasad Ghose … for the Petitioner.

Mr. Sovan Mukherjee … for the Opposite Parties.

1. This revisional application arises out of an order dated July 22, 2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No.707 of 2016.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court allowed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-. Although, the learned court was of the view that the document sought to be produced could have been exhibited earlier as the same was within the knowledge of the P.W.1, Gopa Das, before commencement of trial, the same was sought to be produced only when in the cross-examination the tenant had uttered a statement that Gopa Das and Kakali Mukherjee were living in the said premises, but in a different mess. The learned court was of the view that changed circumstances necessitated marking of the Gas Consumer Book as an exhibit.

3. Mr. Ghose, learned advocate for the petitioner/tenant submits that the application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not have been allowed after the evidence was closed and arguments had been advanced. The purpose of recalling a witness and adducing further evidence at the stage of arguments could not be to fill up any lacuna in the plaint case. Such power of the court should be exercised with utmost caution and in very exceptional cases. The marking of the Gas Consumer Book as an exhibit was completely unnecessary to the suit for eviction of the tenant, on the ground of reasonable requirement. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be resorted to by Smt. Gopa Das.

4. Learned advocate for the plaintiffs submits that the court can allow an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by exercising discretion vested upon it by law, at any stage of the suit. Hence, the discretion was rightly exercised by the court, after the evidence of the parties had concluded. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Suresh Kumar versus Baldev Raj reported in AIR 1984 Delhi

439.

5. Mr. Ghose relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shubhkaran Singh versus Abhayraj Singh & Ors. reported in 2025(3) Indian Civil Cases 471 (S.C) in support of the contention that a witness cannot be recalled at the instance of a party for the purpose of examining, cross-examining or re-examining. Adducing further evidence, by production of a document which was missed out all through the trial, could not be allowed.

6. The power of recall permitted only the court to put questions to the witness on recall and even cross- examination was not ordinarily permitted on the answers given to such questions without the leave of the court.

7. An opportunity to a party to recall a witness for examination, cross-examination or re-examination can be granted by the court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code. The power is to be sparingly used and only in appropriate cases. Merely because the recall or re-examination will not cause any prejudice to the defendant, is not a suitable ground for the court to exercise such discretion.

8. The plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement. The plaintiffs had narrated in detail that they were jointly possessing the property and as such, the family of Gopa Das was also living in the premises and they required additional rooms. The defendant had admitted in the cross-examination that Gopa Das was living in the suit premises, in a separate mess.

9. Under such circumstances, the Gas Consumer Book of Gopa does not seem to be a necessary document for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The plaintiffs have to prove their case of reasonable requirement and in doing so, the plaintiffs can take advantage of whatever had tra