THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.190 OF 2011 DATED SEPTEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Ahmed Najamuddin died per L.Rs. and others …Petitioners And Smt.Durga Bai …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.190 OF 2011 ORDER: The respondent in this C.R.P. filed R.C.No.3 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif (presently designated as ‘Junior Civil Judge’), Zaheerabad, seeking eviction of the tenant, the deceased first petitioner herein, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The Rent Controller, by order dated 23.06.1994, dismissed the eviction petition. The same was reversed by the appellate Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, by order dated 06.07.2001 in R.C.A.No.1 of 1994. This order was challenged before this Court by the tenant and after his demise, his legal representatives, in Civil Revision Petition No.3943 of 2001. The C.R.P. was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court by order dated 28.12.2006, setting aside the appellate order in R.C.A.No.1 of 1994 and remanding the case to the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Zaheerabad, with a direction to give a reasonable opportunity to both parties, enabling them to adduce additional evidence and to decide the rival contentions afresh on merits in accordance with law. Thereupon, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, permitted the parties to adduce additional evidence, both oral and documentary. Petitioner No.10 herein, being the widow of the deceased petitioner No.1 tenant, examined herself as R.W.2 on 18.02.2008. She marked Exs.B.8 to B.13 in evidence. Exs.B.8 to B.10 were however marked subject to objection as they did not contain an endorsement that they had been impounded. Thereupon, the petitioners herein, the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, filed an application in I.A.No.80 of 2008 in R.C.No.3 of 1987 to send the said documents to the District Collector, Medak, for certifying that stamp duty had been collected thereon. This I.A. was dismissed by the trial Court on 11.06.2008 but the same was reversed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.4844 of 2008, directing the Court below to send the subject documents to the District Collector for making the necessary endorsement. The documents were returned by the District Collector, Medak, on 15.04.2010 with the endorsement that stamp duty had been paid thereon. In the meanwhile, R.W.2 was cross-examined on 03.11.2009 by the respondent. Being of the impression that during this cross- examination, R.W.2 had not been asked any questions about Exs.B.8 to B.10, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, reopened the matter suo motu by docket order dated 31.12.2010, expressing the view that the respondent had to be given an opportunity to cross- examine R.W.2 with respect to these documents. Aggrieved by this order, the present Civil Revision Petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. Sri Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the Court below was under a mistaken impression that R.W.2 had not been cross-examined with regard to the documents, Exs.B.8 to B.10. The learned counsel referred to the extract of R.W.2’s cross-examination on this aspect, which is reproduced hereunder: “It is not true to suggest that the above said Hari Mohanlal who is the husband of the petitioner neither sold the suit schedule property nor executed agreement of sale or simple sale deed or cash receipt in my favour on the above said date nor I paid any consideration to him. It is not true to suggest that the above said alleged documents are fabricated for the purpose of this case.” Learned counsel therefore submitted that the order under revision could not be sustained as it was based on a fallacious impression carried by the Court below. On the other hand, Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that under the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) it was open to the Court to recall a witness suo motu or upon an application for the purpose of further cross-examination and that once the Court below had exercised such discretion, the same ought not to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisionary power. The learned counsel further submitted that his client should be afforded an opportunity to further cross-examine R.W.2 as regards the subject documents as the said documents were under a cloud at the time the earlier cross- examination took place. Ex.B.8 is an agreement of sale dated 20.12.1975 said to have been executed by the respondent’s husband in favour of R.W.2, whereunder he allegedly agreed to sell the subject property to her for a sale consideration of Rs.16,000/-. Ex.B.9 is alleged to be a receipt of part payment of this consideration while Ex.B.10 is the alleged simple sale deed dated 26.01.1976 said to have been executed by the respondent’s husband, acknowledging the receipt of the total sale consideration of Rs.16,000/- and recording delivery of the physical possession of the property to R.W.2. It is pertinent to note that these documents found mention in the order dated 28.12.2006 passed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.3943 of 2001. Taking note of the submission that these documents had not been marked on the ground that they had been referred to the District Collector, Medak, for impounding and collection of necessary stamp duty and that the case had been disposed of prior to completion of this exercise; and also the communication dated 30.01.2002 by the District Collector, Medak, certifying the impounding and collection of necessary stamp duty on these documents, this Court considered it just and proper to remand the matter to the learned Rent Controller to decide the rival contentions afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce additional evidence, oral and documentary. It was on the basis of this direction that the matter was reopened and petitioner No.10, being the widow of the deceased tenant, examined herself as R.W.2. The subject documents were marked by her as Exs.B.8 to B.10 but an objection was raised by the other side that there was no endorsement on the documents to the effect that they had been impounded and necessary stamp duty had been collected. The exercise initiated by the petitioners herein for getting the endorsement certified on the documents, through their application in I.A.No.80 of 2008 in R.C.No.3 of 1987 and thereafter through Civil Revision Petition No.4844 of 2008, culminated in the certification by the District Collector that the documents had been impounded and necessary stamp duty had been collected thereon. The documents were returned with this endorsement on 15.04.2010. In the meanwhile, the respondent completed the cross-examination of R.W.2 on 03.11.2009. Pertinent to note, the cross-examination extracted supra indicates that the respondent did, in fact, question R.W.2 as to Exs.B.8 to B.10. R.W.2 denied the suggestion put to her that these documents were false and fabricated. The docket order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Court below suo motu reopening the case for further cross-examination of R.W.2 reflects that the same proceeded on the basis of the Court’s impression that R.W.2 had not been cross-examined with respect to Exs.B.8 to B.10. This impression was, on the face of it, factually erroneous. Further, it is to be noticed that the respondent herself did not choose reopening of the matter for further cross-examination of R.W.2 on this aspect. Once the respondent made her stand known that the documents in question were fabricated by the other side, it was for petitioner No.10 to establish and prove that the said documents were, in fact, executed by the respondent’s husband and were acted upon. Significantly, this was not a case where the Court itself entertained a doubt, warranting further examination of R.W.2. The suo motu reopening of the matter was only for the specific purpose of affording the respondent an opportunity to further cross-examine R.W.2 as to the subject documents. The provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC have no doubt been interpreted to include applications filed by parties for recall of witnesses but, the main purpose of the 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 had already been examined. The power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that recall and re-examination of a witness would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC [VADIRAJ NAGGAPPA VERNEKAR v. SHARADCHANDRA PRABHAKAR GOGATE[1]]. As stated supra, the respondent already had an opportunity to cross-examine R.W.2 as to the subject documents. Merely because the said documents were marked subject to an objection which was already in the process of correction, as Civil Revision Petition No.4844 of 2008 had been allowed by then, the respondent cannot be permitted to plead that she did not avail a full opportunity of cross-examining the witness as to the said documents. Further, as stated supra, she herself did not choose to seek recall of R.W.2 for further cross-examination. In so far as the suo motu reopening of the matter by the Court below is concerned, the order under revision clearly manifests that it was inspired by the mistaken impression of the Court that the respondent did not cross-examine the witness at all as to these documents. Admittedly, that was not so. Further, the stand of the respondent in so far as these documents are concerned is already on record and it would be for the petitioners, and more particularly petitioner No.10, to establish and prove the said documents in accordance with law. Thus, no cause existed for recalling R.W.2 for further cross-examination. The order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, permitting such further cross-examination is therefore set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______ SEPTEMBER, 2011. VGSR [1] (2009) 4 SCC 410