IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10850 of 2011 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA - Petitioner/s(s) Versus AMIT KUMAR & ANR - Respondent/s(s) ___________ 2. 11.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 29.4.2011 passed by Sub Judge 9th Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No. 518 of 2007, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for recalling the PW Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 for their further cross examination has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of argument it was felt that the said PWs have not been cross examined on certain points and the petitioner also offered cost but the learned court below rejected the prayer without considering the facts that further cross-examination is necessary. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2011 (2) PLJR 139. From perusal of the order it appears that the evidence was closed on 8.12.2010 and the case was fixed for argument immediately on 21.12.2010. At this juncture the petitioner filed an application for recalling the said witnesses on the ground that the said 2 witnesses are required to cross-examine further on certain grounds. From perusal of the application it does not appear that on what point the cross-examination is required. So far the decision cited by the petitioner is concerned in the said very decision the Apex Court held that for recall or re-opening the evidence of a party the court exercises power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Apex Court further held that the power to recall any witness is not intended to be used to fill up omission in evidences of a witness who has already been examined. It has specifically been held that if there is a time gap between the completion of the evidence and hearing of the arguments for whatsoever reason and if in that period the party comes across some evidence which he could not lay his hands earlier or some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes into existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 C.P.C. permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice. Here only a bald statement has been made on the ground that it is necessary for further cross- examination without any clarification. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below observed that sufficient time was granted to the 3 petitioner for cross-examining the witnesses and senior counsel Sri Gulab Rabbani has fully cross-examined the witnesses. However, at the time of hearing another senior counsel was engaged. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it is not a fit case where supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India be exercised as the court below has not acted beyond his jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)