Cross-examination under O.18, R.17 of the CPC is to clarify evidence, not to remedy previous omissions.

1. The petitioner / plaintiff calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order passed by the trial Court granting application under O.18, R.17 of the CPC permitting further cross - examination of the plaintiff's witnesses.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a cross - examination has been directed to be permitted by granting application only to fill - up the lacuna which is not permissible in law.

3. No one has appeared on behalf of defendant No.1 despite service of notice.

4. O.18, R.17 of the CPC provides as under: -

'17. Court may recall and examine witness. -

The Court may, at any stage of suit, recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force), put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.'

5. O.18, R.17 of the CPC came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the matter of K. K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy , 2011 (11) SCC 275 : 2011 AIR SCW 2296 in which Their Lordships have held that though O.18, R.17 of the CPC enables the court, at any stage of a suit, to recall any witness who has been examined and put such questions to him as it thinks fit, but this power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the court to clarify any doubts it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties and this power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. Their Lordships further held in paragraph 10 as under: -

'10. O.18, R.17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination - in - chief or cross - examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. O.18, R.17 is primarily a provision enabling the court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo motu, or at the request of any party, so that the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions.'

6. Thereafter, Their Lordships also considered the effect of earlier provision of O.18, R.17A of the CPC and observed as under in paragraphs 14 and 19 : -

'14. The amended provisions of the Code contemplate and expect a trial court to hear the arguments immediately after the completion of evidence and then proceed to judgment. Therefore, it was unnecessary to have an express provision for reopening the evidence to examine a fresh witness or for recalling any witness for further examination. But if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a party comes across some evidence which he could not lay his hands earlier, or some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes into existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power under S.151 of the Code, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice, subject to such terms as the court may deem fit to impose.

19. We may add a word of caution. The power under S.151 or O.18, R.17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that nonproduction earlier was for valid and sufficient re