HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 431 of 2010 Date 26.07.2010 Between: B.Somasekhar Reddy. ..... PETITIONERS AND B.Krishna Mohan Reddy. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S.Lakshminaryana Reddy Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Sri K.Somakonda Reddy The Court made the following HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No. 431 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 25.01.2010 in I.A.No.216 of 2009 in O.S.No.11 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. The petitioners are the defendants in the above mentioned suit. The respondents, who filed the suit for declaration that the gift deeds executed in favour of the petitioners are null and void, filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC to recall D.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross-examination on the ground that some documents were marked through D.Ws.3 and 5 without supplying the copies of the same in advance to them and that the junior advocate appearing for the learned counsel for the plaintiffs examined D.Ws.3 and 5 and, therefore, there was necessity to cross- examine D.Ws.1 and 2 by the senior advocate. An elaborate counter affidavit was filed by the petitioners opposing the said application. By order dated 25.01.2010, the Court below allowed the said application. Assailing the said order, the petitioners filed the present civil revision petition. At the hearing, Sri S.Lakshminaryana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the application filed by the respondents for recalling D.Ws.1 and 2 was not bona fide. He submitted that the said application was filed belatedly after the evidence was closed and arguments were commenced. Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, made strenuous efforts to justify the order passed by the Court below. Under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, the Court is vested with the power to recall any witness at any stage and put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. The language in which the above rule is couched suggests the power to recall the witness is ordinarily exercised by the Court suo motu if it feels that such recalling is necessary for putting certain questions which the Court thinks fit. However, in the course of time, this provision is invoked by the parties and the Courts have been liberally allowing the applications of the parties. The superior Courts have, however, held that this provision shall not be allowed to be used for the purpose of filling the gaps or lacunae in the evidence of the witnesses. Though nothing is stated by the petitioners that the application to recall D.Ws.1 and 2 was intended to fill the gaps or shortcomings, the reasons put-forth by the respondents in their application do not appear to be convincing. At the hearing, it has come out that the entire evidence was closed on 11.02.2008 and hearing was also commenced later. The respondents have filed the application in question only on 05.09.2009 i.e. nearly one year seven months after the evidence was closed. Even if the respondents have felt that the counsel should cross-examine D.Ws.1 and 2, they should have been vigilant in making their application at the right earnest. They cannot be permitted to wait for more than 1½ years and move the application at their leisure. In my opinion, the lethergy and indolence exhibited by the respondents in coming out with the application for recalling the witnesses does not entitle them for grant of relief. The Court below has failed to examine the respondents’ application from this perspective and has, accordingly, committed a serious error in allowing the same. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, CRP.MP.No.604 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:26.07.2010 usd