THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2228 OF 2009 Date: 07.09.2009 Between: Kallamadi Venu Gopal, R/o Nagasamudram village, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District. …Petitioner And Kallamadi Radha Krishna, R/o Pamidi village and Mandal, Anantapur District. …Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2228 OF 2009 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 9.4.2009 in I.A.No.152 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty. The Revision petitioner is the defendant. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. The Revision petitioner/ defendant in his written statement denied the liability contending that he had already repaid the amount due. After evidence of both sides was concluded, the plaintiff filed an application to recall P.Ws.1 & 2 for further chief-examination. The said application was allowed and accordingly P.Ws.1 & 2 let in further evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed another application being I.A.No.152 of 2009 under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to recall D.W.1 for further cross-examination. Though the defendant opposed the said application, the Court below by order dated 9.4.2009 allowed I.A.No.152 of 2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite notice, none appeared for the respondent. In the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of I.A.No.152 of 2009 it is pleaded that after examination of D.W.1 the plaintiff had secured certain material to show that the defendant had borrowed from others also. According to the plaintiff, it is necessary to put the said material to D.W.1 to disprove his contention that he has not borrowed the amount from the plaintiff. The power conferred on Court under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. is purely discretionary which has to be exercised judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In the instant case, admittedly P.W.1 was recalled and thus the matter was already reopened. In the circumstances, the Court below thought it fit to recall D.W.1 for further evidence. The only contention raised in this Revision petition is that the transactions in respect of which D.W.1 is sought to be cross-examined do not relate to the issues that arise for consideration in the suit and therefore recalling of D.W.1 is unwarranted. The said issue requires consideration in the main suit and need not be gone into at this stage. Since no prejudice is caused to the other side by recalling D.W.1, the discretion exercised by the Court below in allowing the plaintiff’s application to recall D.W.1 cannot be held to be arbitrary or perverse. Hence the interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 07 .09.2009 gbs