THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1498 of 2010 Dated: 15-7-2010 Oral order: This is a defendant’s revision directed against the order dated 12-3-2010 allowing I.A.No. 193 of 2010 filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking recall of CW1, the plaintiff’s husband for his cross- examination. The suit is filed for recovery of the amount on the basis of a promissory note. Thereat the defendant sought to examine the plaintiff’s husband to support the defence that there was no necessity for the defendant to have borrowed the amount under the suit promissory note. The plaintiff’s husband was consequently examined as the Court witness (C.W.1) but was not cross-examined by the plaintiff. After closure of the evidence, when the suit is posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 193 of 2010 to recall CW1 for his cross-examination, claiming in the accompanying affidavit that CW1 was examined by the defendant’s counsel on 23-2-2010 whereat he referred to various documents which are not connected with the suit transaction and as there is no clarity in CW1’s testimony; plaintiff would be prejudiced if she is denied the opportunity of cross- examining him. Though in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.193 of 2010, no clear reasons are stated for the belated application to recall of CW1 for cross-examination, explaining why he was not cross- examined immediately after his testimony, the fact remains that CW1 was not examined by the plaintiff. The court below exercising its discretion and recording reasons that the plaintiff is also entitled to an opportunity of cross-examining CW1, allowed I.A.No. 193 of 2010 filed by the plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. This Court discerns no substantial error in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion by the court below,warranting revisional interference. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 15th July, 2010. GRR