THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4585 of 2011 Dated:05.11.2011 Between: Kondapalli Satya Devi @ Satyavathi. …Petitioner and Kovvuri Vijaya Lakshmi. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4585 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property and future profits. The evidence of P.W.1 is completed. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1100 of 2011 to reopen and recall P.W.1. The same was dismissed by impugned order dated 09.09.2011. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner. He points out that several issues arise in the suit and due to inadvertence, the petitioner’s Counsel could not conduct effective cross examination of P.W.1, and therefore, in the interests of justice P.W.1 should be recalled for further cross examination. The law in relation to the power of the Court to reopen and recall the witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908, is very well settled. The Supreme Court in Vadiraj Nagappa Varnekar v Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gagate[1], held as follows. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicated hereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. … … Of course, if the evidence on re- examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court to permit recall of such a witness for re- examination-in-chief with permission to the defendants to cross-examine the witness thereafter. Applying the above principles, this Court is convinced that the impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 05.11.2011 vs [1] (2009) 4 SCC 410 : 2009 (3) ALT 25