IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18453 of 2011 Babita Devi Versus Udai Narayan Tiwari @ Tuntun T ---------------------------------- 2. 19.10.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj in Matrimonial Case No. 52 of 2009 whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner for recall of AW I that is the husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some clarification is necessary and, therefore, the application was filed for recall of AW I but the learned court below rejected the said application. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may put such question to him as the court thinks fit. Except this provision there is no other provision which gives right to a party to recall a witness. So far this provision is concerned it speaks about the discretion of the court and not the right of a party. In AIR 2009 SC 1604 Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) Vs.Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate the Apex 2 Court has held that the power under the provisions of Order 18 Rue 17 is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and re-examination would not cause prejudice to the parties. Such power has to be invoked not to fill up the lacuna 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 suite it is always within the discretion of the trial court to permit recall of such a witness for the examination-in-chief with permission to defendants to cross-examination. In the present case at out hand, the only ground raised by the petitioner is that some clarification is necessary regarding the mentioning of criminal revision in evidence of AW I. How it is material for just decision of the suit has not been clarified either in the application or in this writ application. In such view of the matter, when the learned court below has exercised a jurisdiction judicially in supervisory jurisdiction under 227 of the Constitution of India the same cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)