( 1 )

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein who is the sole defendant in the Trial Court questions the legality of the order passed by the Trial Court in LA. No. 769/1996 in O. S. No. 106 of 1990.

( 3 ) IT is submitted that the abovesaid Interlocutory application has been filed under Order 18 Rule 17 C. P. C. for recalling P. W. 1 for the purpose of cross- examination in the interest of justice. The sole ground on which the recalling of P. W. 1 for the purpose of cross-examination is sought, is that when the plaintiff was examined, certain material questions were not asked by the counsel for the petitioner, as the petitioner could not explain the same to his counsel. Order 18 Rule 17 C. P. C. is to the following effect:"the Court may at any stage of a 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 as the Court thinks fit. "

( 4 ) BY a reading of the above provision, it is apparent that when the Court feels necessity at any stage of the trial to call for the witness already examined, it can put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. But, in the present situation, it is altogether different wherein the petitioner seeks to recall p. W. 1 for further cross-examination on the ground that his counsel at the time of cross-examination was not properly briefed. This is not the criteria laid down for recalling of a witness; but, in practice, it is not denied that the court has always permitted at the instance of parties for recalling of witness for further examination/cross-examination subject to the facts and circumstances of the case.

( 5 ) IN this case, the reason assigned for recalling the witness for further cross- examination being that of not briefing properly the counsel at the time of cross-examination of P. W. 1, cannot be accepted as a ground for recalling of the witness for further cross-examination. However, this order will not in any way affect the production or otherwise of the evidence of the petitioner- defendant.

( 6 ) IN the circumstances, there is no error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the trial Court.

( 7 ) C. R. P. is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.