HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5527 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The latter filed F.C.O.P.No.162 of 2007 before the Family Court, Warangal, for dissolution of the marriage. The recording of evidence was concluded and the O.P. is at the stage of arguments. The petitioner filed I.A.No.184 of 2010 under Rule 17 of Order XVIII C.P.C., with a prayer to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 11.11.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. With the conclusion of evidence, the respective versions of the concerned parties, with reference to the pleadings, have come on record. On a perusal of the evidence and on hearing the arguments of the parties, the trial Court has recorded a finding as to whether the plaintiff has proved his case, or failed to do so. Recalling of a witness is not a matter of course, as strong case has to be made out for that purpose. It is only when subsequent events warrant, or that an important aspect was inadvertently omitted at the relevant point of time, despite due care and caution, that the Court can consider the feasibility of recalling the witness. Acceding to the request of a party to recall the witness, examined on behalf of the opposite party, is prone to be misused as an opportunity to fill the lacuna. In the instant case, the only ground pleaded by the petitioner for recalling of PW.1 is to confront him with a question as to why he is “trying to avoid the society of the petitioner, and as to why he filed the O.P.” To say the least, such questions are totally irrelevant and in a way, detrimental to the interests of the petitioner, herself. Except that there was anxiety on the part of the petitioner to recall PW.1, no justifiable reason is mentioned. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:018.04.2011 GJ