THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3067 and 3258 of 2010 Dated:01.10.2010 Between: Palivela Tayaramma, And another. ….Petitioners And Adivishnu Eeswar Kumar. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3067 and 3258 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.171 of 2008. The suit was instituted by the respondent on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, for recovery of money based on a promissory note. It was alleged therein that the father of the second petitioner executed promissory note. The first petitioner is the wife of the promissor. The petitioners opposed the suit. The plaintiff/respondent examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 by filing their affidavits in lieu of their chief examination. Defendants’/petitioners’ cross-examination was completed on 18.06.2009. Thereafter, the respondent filed two applications, being I.A.No.1036 of 2009, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to reopen further examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, and I.A.No.1037 of 2009 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall P.Ws.1 to 3. These applications were opposed. By an order, dated 11.06.2010, the trial Court allowed the plaintiff’s application to reopen, and consequently I.A.No.1037 of 2009 was also allowed to recall P.Ws.1 to 3. Aggrieved by the former, C.R.P.No.3258 of 2008 is filed, and against the later, C.R.P.No.3067 of 2010 is filed. Counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate[1] in support of the contention that the trial Court committed an error in recalling the witnesses to fill up the omissions. Per contra, the Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that P.Ws.1 to 3 are being recalled only to an extent of typing mistake that has crept in the affidavits filed in lieu of chief examination and that the Junior Counsel also filed an affidavit to that effect. The law is now well settled that the case cannot be reopened nor witnesses can be recalled to fill up the omissions and mistakes of the witnesses, whose examination has already been completed. In Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar the Supreme Court held as under. …The provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of witnesses, the main purpose of the said rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined… …The power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicated hereinabove, 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 an ambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course, if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the trial Court to permit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permission to the defendants to cross-examine the witness thereafter… The submission of the Counsel that it is only a typing mistake, which needs to be corrected, cannot be accepted for two reasons. First, the two interlocutory applications were filed on 29.07.2009. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court posted the matter for orders on 25.11.2009. Orders were not pronounced on that day. The matter was adjourned. At that stage on 30.03.2010 Sri Kadiyala Ravindra, Advocate, appearing for respondent herein filed affidavit purportedly supporting the plaintiff’s version. Secondly, it is quite ununderstandable as to how the typing mistake could occur in all the three chief affidavits of P.Ws.1 to 3. If at this stage the witnesses are recalled it would certainly result in miscarriage of justice and amounts to rectification of omissions and mistakes. As held by the Supreme Court the jurisdiction under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC cannot be exercised in such a case. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly allowed, and lower Court’s impugned orders are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 01.10.2010 vs [1] (2009) 4 SCC 410 = 2009 (3) ALT 25 (SC)