THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3652 AND 4499 OF 2011 Dated:09.12.2011 Between: Nandapuneedi Veera Venkateswara Rao .. Petitioner And Pujyam Manikyamba .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3652 AND 4499 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: As these two revisions arise out of a common order dated 01.08.2011 in separate interlocutory applications filed in the same suit being O.S.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Razole, it is expedient to dispose of them by a common order. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent. The petitioner is a defendant. Being aggrieved by the common order of the lower Court dated 01.08.2011 in I.A.Nos.406 and 407 of 2011 the present civil revision petitions are filed. The respondent filed the said suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The petitioner/defendant is contesting the same. It is her case that the plaintiff closed her evidence on 28.02.2011. During her evidence, petitioner marked Ex.B1 – receipt on 13.04.2011 evidencing discharge of entire promissory note amount and about ten days thereafter defendant’s evidence was closed. A month thereafter on 12.07.2011 the plaintiff filed two applications. I.A.No.406 of 2011 was filed to reopen the suit to prove that Ex.B1 - discharge certificate is false and fabricated document. I.A.No.407 of 2011 is filed to reopen the matter and permit the plaintiff to adduce further evidence. These applications were opposed. By impugned order, the trial Court allowed the said applications giving the following reasons. Admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent/defendant for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note and on behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 and on behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and got examined D.Ws.2 to 4 and basing on the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff the defendant produced Exs.X1 to X4 and the plaintiff got cross-examined D.Ws.1 to 4 at length on the said documents. According to the respondent/defendant the defendant discharged the promissory note amount to the husband of the petitioner and to that effect the husband of petitioner executed Ex.B1 document and as seen from Ex.B1 D.Ws.2 and 3 have attested the said document and D.W.4 has scribed it. Since the petitioner/plaintiff disputing the genuineness of Exs.X1 to X3 as well as Ex.B1 and in view of the facts and nature of the suit, I feel if the petition is allowed no prejudice or hardship would be caused to other side because the respondent/defendant is at liberty to get cross-examine the said witnesses in support of his version. Hence, the petitions are liable to be allowed. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ex.B1 is a receipt given by the husband of the plaintiff acknowledging the receipt of the entire discharge amount. When the document was marked by the defendant, there is no cross examination thereon. Therefore, without giving any reasons summoning the husband or the Tahsildar, P.Gannavaram Village cannot be permitted. Secondly he would submit that when the evidence of the parties is closed and the matter is coming up for arguments, permitting the reopening of the suit and summoning of witnesses would amount to improper exercise of jurisdiction. Under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is always open to the Court to recall any witness at any stage. But this power is not absolute power. It has to be exercised judicially and sparingly. I n Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate [1] , the Supreme Court held as under. It is now well settled that 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 any 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. In this case, the facts which speak for themselves are that when the petitioner/defendant marked Ex.B1 on 13.04.2011, no objection was raised. It is only after the defendant closed his evidence the plaintiff came forward with the said applications. Thus, an attempt is being made to fill up the lacunae. The power to recall a witness as held by the Supreme Court cannot be exercised which would cause prejudice to other party. In that view of the matter, the common order passed by the lower Court cannot be sustained. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the impugned common order passed by the lower Court in I.A.Nos.406 and 407 of 2011 dated 01.08.2011 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 09.12.2011 KH [1] (2009) 4​ SCC 410