IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH DATED 1ST APRIL, 2011. C.R.P.No. 5885 of 2010 Between: K. Naveen Kumar …Petitioner. And K. Swetha …Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No. 5885 of 2010 O R D E R: Petitioner is the husband of the respondent. He filed O.P. No. 1052 of 2005 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad for a declaration that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, solemnized on 25.11.2005, is null and void. It is stated that in the said O.P., petitioner himself was examined as PW-1 and four others were examined on behalf of the petitioner as PWs 2 to 5 and the matter was coming up for respondent’s evidence. At that stage, respondent in the O.P., i.e. the wife filed I.A. No. 615 of 2010 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination, on the ground that she lost sight of some material aspects while cross- examining PW-1 and, hence, it is necessary to recall PW-1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below allowed the I.A. filed by the respondent herein seeking to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination without assigning any reasons and without even affording any opportunity to the petitioner to file counter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that though under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC the Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit, as the Court below has not assigned any reasons while passing the impugned order, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted to the Court below for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.8.2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below for considering I.A. 615 of 2010 afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and passing reasoned order, in accordance with law. The C.R.P. is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Court below as above. __________________ V. ESWARAIAH J. DATE: 01-4-2011. MVB.