THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 4790 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 19.07.2010, passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the application in I.A. No. 610 of 2010 in O.S. No. 2358 of 2006, filed by the respondent-plaintiff to recall P.W.1 for marking certain documents. The learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 having been closed, and in the absence of respondent-plaintiff pleading in the plaint about the documents, namely extract of customer ledger register for the year 2003 and ledger extract from 01.01.2004 to 31.03.2004, and in the absence of any explanation given by the respondent-plaintiff, why he produced them belatedly after four years of filing the suit, the Court below committed an error in recalling P.W.1 for marking the said documents in evidence, particularly when the petitioners-defendants disputed the contents of the same. He further submitted that recalling P.W.1 after closure of his evidence, for marking the said documents in evidence, would amount to permitting the respondent-plaintiff to fill up the lacunae in his case, which certainly would cause prejudice to the petitioner. In support of his argument that power to recall a witness by the Court has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and that it cannot permit a party to fill up the gaps in his/her evidence, placed reliance on the judgments of the apex Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate[1] and of this Court in B. Ramasubba Reddy v. Y. Ramakrishna Reddy[2]. He thus contended that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. As can be seen from the order under revision, the suit is filed for recovery of money, the petitioners-defendants contested the claim. Appropriate issues are also said to have been framed. P.W. 1 was examined and his evidence was closed. The suit was coming up for further evidence of the respondent-plaintiff, and at that point of time, the respondent-plaintiff filed the present application, to recall P.W.1 for marking extracts of customer ledger register for the year 2003 and ledger extract from 01.01.2004 to 31.03.2004, on the ground that they are relevant to prove their case. Though the petitioners-defendants contend that the delay in filing the said documents is not explained and that they are disputing the contents of the documents, the fact remains, the Court below found that even though there was delay in filing them, but considering the nature of relief claimed by the respondent-plaintiff in the suit, felt that they are necessary documents to prove the case, and therefore, can be received in evidence. Having find so, the Court below felt it appropriate to recall P.W. 1 to mark the said documents in evidence, subject to proof and relevancy, and no exception can be taken thereto, particularly when no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners- defendants for they would be provided an opportunity to cross- examine P.W.1. There is no doubt that the apex Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate held that the power to recall a witness has to be exercised with great caution and sparingly and that a witness cannot be recalled for filling up the lacunae. But in the instant case, the evidence on the side of the respondent-plaintiff is not closed and the evidence of the petitioners-defendants has not yet commenced, and such being the status of the case, it cannot be said that by recalling P.W.1 for marking the documents, it would amount to permitting the respondent-plaintiff to fill up the lacunae in his case. Therefore, the said decision of the apex Court would not assist the petitioners-defendants in any manner. The judgment of this Court in B. Ramasubba Reddy v. Y. Ramakrishna Reddy, would also not be of any assistance to the petitioners-defendants, because in the said case, the Court while making it clear that evidence once closed can be re-opened if proper grounds are established, and while highlighting the need for the Court to record reasons, set aside the order challenged thereunder, which recalled a witness for further evidence, because it was a cryptic order bereft of any reasons. Since in the case on hand, the documents sought to be marked through P.W.1 are relevant, the Court below, as noted above, thought it appropriate to recall P.W.1, and accordingly passed the order under revision, recalling P.W.1 for further evidence, and I find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 3rd December, 2010 KSR [1]AIR 2009 SCW 2518 [2] 2009 (1) ALD 422