THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2269 OF 2011 Dated: 24.11.2011 Between: Ch.Madhu Babu … Petitioner And 1. Abburi Bharathi and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2269 OF 2011 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the plaintiﬀ in O.S.No.75 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the Court of the V-Additional District Judge (FTC), Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar. The suit is ﬁled for speciﬁc performance based on an agreement of sale dated 27.11.2003 executed by the defendant No.1 / respondent No.1 herein. Written statement was ﬁled by the defendant contesting the suit claim. On behalf of the plaintiﬀ, aﬃdavit of P.W.4 in lieu of his chief-examination was ﬁled on 28.11.2007. However, during his cross-examination P.W.4 stated that he had signed the chief aﬃdavit in a hurry and he did not go through the contents of the aﬃdavit and he did not know the sale transaction between the plaintiﬀ and the defendant No.1. Having regard to the stand taken by him, P.W.4 was cross-examined by the plaintiﬀ on 3.6.2010 and the evidence of P.W.4 was closed. On 10.06.2010 the plaintiﬀ ﬁled I.A.No.253 of 2010 under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to recall P.W.4 for further cross-examination stating that by oversight he omitted to ask certain vital questions to P.W.4 regarding his involvement in the suit transaction. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 02.11.2010 and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon K.K. VELUSAMY v. N. PALANISAMY [1] vehemently contended that in view of the settled legal position of law that any witness can be recalled for further examination at any stage of the case to meet the ends of justice in exercise of the discretionary powers of the Court, the Court below ought to have allowed the petitioner’s application and recalled P.W.4 for further cross-examination. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent. It is true that as per Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. the Court may at any stage of the suit recall any witness. However exercise of such power is warranted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly on being satisﬁed that no prejudice would be caused to the other party. In the instant case, the suit is of the year 2004 and the order under Revision shows that though the issues were framed on 03.01.2007 the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiﬀ did not turn up after ﬁling their aﬃdavits in lieu of chief-examination and ultimately the Court had to secure their presence by issuing bailable warrants. Be that as it may, the order under Revision shows that the Court below on application of mind to the material available on record declined to recall P.W.4 taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner failed to show the purpose for which P.W.4 was sought to be recalled. The said discretion exercised by the Court below which cannot be termed as perverse or arbitrary warrants no interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 24.11.2011 gbs [1] 2011 (4) SCALE 61