IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16419 of 2011 Smt.Shyam Agarwal Versus Krishna Devi ---------------------------------- 02. 21.09.2011. By the impugned order dated 16.08.2011 passed by Sub Judge V, Ara in Misc. Case No.2/39 of 2000, the learned Court below has refused to recall Gauri Shankar Prasad, P.W. 1 for further cross- examination. The learned counsel for the defendant-tenant- petitioner submitted that the landlady, plaintiff was earlier cross-examined and thereafter, on the prayer of the petitioner, she was recalled and in her further cross-examination, she gave only answer to all questions that her husband knows. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed the present application for recall of her husband, P.W.1 but the learned Court below rejected the application of the petitioner only on the ground that he has already been cross-examined at length. In A.I.R. 2009 Supreme Court 1604(Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate), the Hon’ble Apex court has held that “the power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 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 any 2 prejudice to the parties. Such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae 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.” In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, since the learned Court below has observed that P.W. 1 has already been cross-examined at length, in my opinion, in supervisory jurisdiction, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh/A.F.R. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)