IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16440 of 2011 Khalifa Rai Versus Sheo Kumar Rai ---------------------------------- 2. 22.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner against the order dated 9.5.2011 passed by Munsif, 2nd Chapra in connection with Title Suit No. 77 of 1986 whereby the learned Munsif rejected the application filed by the petitioner to recall all the witnesses of the defendants for further cross- examination. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below found that after the evidences of both the parties were closed the plaintiff was examined as witness from the custody and thereafter this application has been filed for recall of the witnesses. In a decision reported in AIR 2009 SC 1604 Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs.) Vs. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate the Apex Court has held that the power under the provision of Order 18 Rule 17 is to be sparingly exercised in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and re-examination would not cause any 2 prejudice to the parties. Such power is to be invoked not to fill up lacuna in the evidence of the witnesses which has already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. In the present case, the only ground of the petitioner is that he was in custody. From perusal of the application filed by the petitioner it appears that he has admitted that the son of the petitioner was doing pairvy in the case and cross-examination has been made to the witnesses. Now therefore, only because the petitioner was in custody the witnesses cannot be recalled as a matter of right for their recross- examination. In view of the settled principles of law, in my opinion, this is not a fit case where the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. A.F.R. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)