HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.432 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 13.12.2010, passed by the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court) City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dismissing the application in I.A.No.466 of 2010 in O.S.No.237 of 2009, which was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. read with Section 151 and under Section 138 of Indian Evidence Act, praying the Court to recall P.W-1 for re-examination. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff and perused the relevant material papers on record. The said suit was filed for recovery of money based on cheques and cheque return memos. From the impugned order, it is evident that P.W- 1’s cross-examination was completed on 27.08.2010. The present application was filed before the Court below on 27.09.2010 seeking to recall P.W-1 for re-examination on the ground that on the date of cross-examination of P.W-1, a junior to the learned counsel for the plaintiff was present and as he recently joined the profession he was unaware of the proceedings and did not conduct the re-examination of P.W-1. It is settled law that a party cannot be permitted to re-examine any witness to fill up the lacunae in his/her case. In the instant case, the plaintiff did not mention the specific aspects on which he sought himself to be re-called and re- examined instead the reason for not re- examining P.W-1 by the counsel on the date of closure of cross-examination of P.W-1 was given, attributing the blame on the counsel. The Court below rightly relied on the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Smt.Surinder Kaur V. Karanbir Singh and another[1], which was relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant, to the effect that Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. does not permit a party to re-examine any witness to fill up the lacunae in his/her case, and dismissed the said application. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED​ 24th June 2011 DR [1] AIR 2004 Punj & Hary 377