IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3598 OF 2009 AND 3726 OF 2009 C.R.P.No.3598 of 2009: Between: Mushkin Vali Sab and others .....PETITIONERS AND Shaik Hazarabee ....RESPONDENT C.R.P.No.3726 of 2009: Between: Mushkin Vali Sab and others .....PETITIONERS AND Shaik Hazarabee ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3598 OF 2009 AND 3726 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.3726 OF 2009: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 08.06.2009, in I.A.No.99 of 2008 in O.S.No.97 of 2005, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”), to recall PW.1 in the above suit for further cross-examination, was dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. The primary object of Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. is to afford an opportunity to a party to put such questions to a witness not put at an earlier occasion, due to inadvertence or could not be put despite due diligence. But the power to recall a witness is extraordinary and can be exercised sparingly to do full and complete justice. But it cannot be used for filling up lacunae or loopholes. 4. On earlier occasion i.e., on 19.02.2008, PW.1 was examined at length. Four months after her examination, the present application is filed to recall PW.1 without assigning any reason at all whatsoever in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. In the affidavit it is stated that by mistake and oversight, during the cross-examination of PW.1, some material aspects were not asked. What are those material aspects not put to PW.1 have not been stated. Therefore, in the absence of assigning any reason, the question of recalling the evidence of PW.1 does not arise. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.3726 of 2009 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. C.R.P.No.3598 OF 2009: 6. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 08.06.2009, in I.A.No.98 of 2008 in O.S.No.97 of 2005, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Section 151 C.P.C., to reopen the evidence of respondent/plaintiff in the above suit, was dismissed. 7. In view of the fact that C.R.P.No.3726 of 2009 filed to recall PW.1 was dismissed, the question of reopening the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff in the suit does not arise. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.3598 of 2009 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 08, 2011 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3598 OF 2009 AND 3726 OF 2009 February 08, 2011