HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AT JAMMU C. Revision No. 83/2007 C. Revision No. 80/2006 Date of Decision 12.12.2008 Dushyant Kumar Rampaul v. Puran Chand & Ors. Dushyant Kumar Rampaul v. Mst. Dewan Devi & Ors. Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Vinod Kumar Gupta Counsel: For the petitioner(s): Mr. L.K. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. C.M. Gupta, Advocate i/ Whether to be reported in press, Journal/Media : Yes/No ii/ Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal : Yes/No Civil Revision No. 83/2007 The present case is an old and pending in the trial court since 31.7.1967. The evidence of plaintiffs has not been completed so far. The plaintiffs-petitioners herein filed an application for re-calling the Patwari witness for clarification of the statement given by him during the trial of the suit. The learned Sub Judge, Jammu dismissed this application vide order dated 25.4.2006. Subsequently, the plaintiffs-petitioners were given number of opportunities to produce the evidence in the case and the same was not produced and consequently the evidence of the plaintiffs- petitioners herein was closed vide order dated 1.5.2007. 2 Aggrieved by these orders the petitioners herein have challenged the correctness of both these orders by way of these two revision petitions on the ground that those orders are not in accordance with law. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the file. Mr. L.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there was an ambiguity in the statement of Patwari as such he is required to be examined for clarification of the same. In support he has relied upon cases entitled Steelage Industries Ltd. & Anr. V. Smt. Chander Bagai (AIR 1992 Bombay 406) and S.S.S. Durai Pandian v. S.A. Samuthira Pandian (AIR 1998 Madras 323) Mr. C.M. Gupta, learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, has argued that this is an old case pending in the trial court for the last four decades and the petitioners only want to delay the trial. The petitioners cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna left by them. He has further contended that the power to re-call any witness vests with the court and not with the parties. From the perusal of the record it is evident that the suit in the trial court was instituted on 31.7.1967 and the statement of the Patwari was recorded on 17.2.1987 and 19.2.1987. Since 1987 the petitioners herein did not move any court for re-calling the Patwari witness for clarification of any ambiguity, if any, in the statement of Patwari witness. It was only 3 in the year 2006 such application was moved in the trial court i.e. after a lapse of period of about 19 years. Under O.18 r-17 of Civil Procedure Code the courts are empowered to re-call the witness who has been examined, at any stage of the suit, for putting certain questions but this power vests with the court is discretionary and can be exercised depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This provision does not enable a party to claim the privilege of recalling the witness at his sweet will. As stated above, in the instant case, the present application has been moved by the petitioners after a lapse of about 19 years and the intention of the petitioners shows that they want to protract the trial of the suit. I have perused the copies of the statement annexed with the petition and there is no ambiguity in the statement pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Patwari witness is a witness of record and his statement is based upon the record. It is the duty of the parties to obtain copy of the record and get the same proved from the partwari in support of their cases. The power under O. 18 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked to fill up the lacunas left by any party, if any. The copy of Shajra Nasab can be obtained by the petitioners and be produced in the case, if they have any doubt about the statement of the partwari. The learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to show any illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court and also there is proper exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. 4 For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that there is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed alongwith connected CMP. Civil Revision No. 80/2006 Further in this case vide impugned order the learned trial court has closed the evidence of plaintiffs-petitioners herein. From the perused of record, it appears that the trial court has given sufficient opportunities to the plaintiffs-petitioners for producing their witnesses which they have failed and finally the impugned order was passed. Numbers of last opportunities were granted and also in the interest of justice further opportunities were granted. Keeping in view the nature of the case and in the interest of justice, in my opinion one more opportunity shall be granted to the plaintiffs-petitioners for producing their evidence. Accordingly the plaintiffs-petitioners herein are directed to produce complete evidence before the trial court on 27.12.2008 and the trial court shall record complete evidence. No further opportunity be granted to the plaintiffs- petitioners. In such circumstances the impugned order is modified to that extent. Accordingly the Revision petition stands disposed of alongwith connected CMP. ( Vinod Kumar Gupta) Judge Jammu 12.12.2008 5