THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :2895 of 2010 BETWEEN: K. Vallabha Narayana S/o. Krishna Murthy R/o. D.No.49-38-5/1, Akkeyyapalem, Visakhapatnam. PETITIONER AND Maruboina Rambabu S/o. Subbarao, R/o. Butchirajupalem, Visakhapatnam. RESPONDENT Counsel for Petitioner: Sri M. Krishna Rao Counsel for Respondent: N.A. The Court made the following order: ORDER: This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/defendant, is directed against the order dated 9.06.2010 passed by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam, in I.A.No.130 of 2010 in O.S.No.1319 of 2004. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The defendant filed the above application under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking to recall PW.3 for the purpose of further cross- examination, contending that the plaintiff got examined the scribe of promissory note as PW.3 and during the cross examination, the defendant confronted the original of Exs.B.1 and B.4, which PW.3 has admitted, and sought time for cross examination of PW.3, but the Court treated as nil. Later the application filed by him in I.A.N.58 of 2009 for the purpose of further cross examination of PW.3 was allowed but the defendant could not produce PW.3, as his daughter was in hospital for delivery, he asked his counsel for getting adjournment, but his counsel was also not present to the Court. Therefore, there are no willful latches or negligence on his part in not getting cross examining PW.3. The plaintiff filed counter opposing the averments made in the application. The trial Court observed that though the application for recalling of PW.3 was allowed, the defendant has not turned up and produced PW.3, which goes to show the negligence on the part of the defendant, and dismissed the application. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. reads as under. “Court may recall and examine witness: - The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him s the Court thinks fit. “ From a perusal of the above Rule it is evident that discretion is vested in the trial Court to recall the petitioner for the purpose of cross- examination in particular circumstances. In the present case, the Court below has already given an opportunity to the defendant to recall PW.3. Having not utilized that opportunity the defendant cannot file an application for the very same relief. Hence, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. In view of the same, I see no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 16th July, 2010 Js.