CRP 204/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Dr B Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr PK Roy, the lea rned counsel for the respondents. 2. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 27.10.2009, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1 , Karimganj in Title Suit No. 60 of 2007 rejecting the application of the petiti oners for recalling DW-1 and PW-1. 3. The petitioners who are the defendants in the suit, contested th e suit and adduced their evidence. In the cross-examination of DW1, some questi ons concerning GR Case, which, according to the petitioners, are beyond the plea dings of the respondents. According to the petitioners, the respondents by putt ing those questions to DW1 in the cross-examination had created cloud before the Court and the cloud so created was required to be removed by recalling him as w itness. It was under the aforesaid circumstances that the application was filed by the petitioners for recalling DW1 and PW1 for re-examination. The applicati on was opposed by the respondents. After hearing the parties, the trial court re jected the application, the operative portion whereof reads thus : Perused the petitions. Heard the learned counsels of the respective side. Also perused the case record. Upon perusing the same it transpires that DW1 Gouri L al Das during the cross-examination has admitted that he was in jail Hajot for 1 4 days in connection with one GR Case relating to land dispute connecting this s uit. Therefore in such salutation the question of creating any doubt before the court does not arise as it is a clear case of admission by DW1. Hence recallin g of DW1 in the given facts and circumstances do not permits. So far matter rel ating to submission of documents by the plaintiffs, the same is relates to GR ca se document which have been already admitted by the defendants during the cross- examination of DW1. Thus the prayer for recalling of DW1 and PW1 stands rejected. As the defendant side has failed to submit any further lists of DW’s the evidence of DW’s is clos ed for early disposal of the case. The petition No. 965/24 is disposed of on contest accordingly. Fix 4.11.09 for argument. 4. Dr Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners veheme ntly submits that the trial court by refusing to recall DW1 and PW1 has arbitrar ily shut the evidence of the petitioners and that a great prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioners unless the impugned order is set aside. According to the learned counsel, the trial court has failed to appreciate that the exami nation of DW1 should have dispelled any doubt created by the admission of PW1. It is the further submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that th e impugned order is contrary to the various judicial decisions rendered by the A pex Court as well as the High Courts including this Court in Rammi @ Rameshwar v s State of MP, reported in (199) 8 SC 649, Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) vs S haradchandra Prabhakar Gogate, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 410, Hindustan Paper Cor poration Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Saikia and Associates, reported in 2009(1) GLT 151. 5. On the other hand, the impugned order is justified by Mr PK Roy, the learned counsel for the respondents, who submits that the petitioners did n ot make out any case for recall of DW1 and PW1 but was merely drying to stall t he disposal of the suit or to make up the lacunae found in their case. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties. Under what circumstances, the jurisdic tion of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution should be exercised hav e been reiterated by the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, report ed in (2003) 6 SCC 675. 7. The law is well settled that the object of re-examination is to clear ambiguities in cross-examination and that if a new important matter is all owed to be produced in cross-examination, the other party has the right to re-ex amine the witnesses. In other words, re-examination of witnesses has to be perm itted to clarify or clear ambiguities in the cross-examination. In the instant case, a reading of application of the petitioners will clearly show that no reas on, much less cogent reason, was mentioned by the petitioners for re-examining/r ecalling DW1 and PW1 except by making bare statement that some questions were pu t to DW1 which were beyond the pleadings of the respondents and that while cross -examining DW1 cloud had been created before the Court. This is the basis upon which the trial court was expected to allow the petitioners to recall or re-exam ine DW1 and PW1. In my opinion, the reason given by the petitioners to re-exami ne/recall DW1 or PW1 is no reason at all. Recalling or re-examining of a witnes s who has been examined is not a matter of right. It is the bounded duty of the petitioners to convincingly show that such re-examination/recalling is absolute ly necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. In my opinion, the trial court does not commit any jurisdictional errors as po inted out by the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai (supra), which will call for the i nterference of this Court. As indicated by the Apex court, the supervisory juri sdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised for keeping th e subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction and that when a sub ordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed t o exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though availabl e is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure o f justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. From the impugned order as well as th e application of the petitioners, the rejection of the application of the petiti oners for recalling of the witnesses does not cause any prejudice to them, much less of causing gross failure of justice. 8. I have also carefully gone through the decisions cited by the le arned counsel for the petitioners and I am of the view that the aforesaid decisi ons cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners correctly laid down the pro position of law, but they are not of any assistance to the case of the petitione rs. 9. Resultantly, this revision petition has no merit and is accordin gly dismissed at the admission stage. The parties are directed to bear their re spective costs. Before parting, I am constrained to observe that the trial cour t did not proceed with the case even though no interim order was passed by this Court staying further proceedings of the suit. This appears to be an improper e xercise of jurisdiction by the trial court.