HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2998 OF 2011 . DATED 27TH DECEMBER, 2011. BETWEEN Vadapalli Venkata Surya Sanyasi Raju …Petitioner And Smt. Maravathu Ambujamma and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2998 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 1.4.2011 by which the learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Visakhapatnam allowed the application in I.A.No. 1002 of 2010 in O.S.No. 408 of 2007 filed by the respondents/defendants to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 for further cross-examination. Heard. Perused the case file. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in as much as the respondents/defendants cross-examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 at length, there is no need to recall them for further cross- examination. He submitted that the impugned application was filed only to fill up the lacunae. He contended that merely because their earlier counsel was not properly briefed is not a valid ground for permitting them to recall PWs 1 to 3 for further cross examination. Admittedly in the case on hand, after framing the issues and completion of the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff, the respondents/defendants filed additional written statement. It was the case of the respondents/defendants that their earlier Counsel gave ‘no objection’ as he was not well versed with civil matters and after engaging another counsel, they obtained the copies of depositions of PWs 1 to 3 and thereafter they filed the application to receive additional written statement, which was allowed by the Court below. It was their further case that their earlier Counsel did not brief them properly and that the cross examination of PWs 1 to 3 was not in consonance with the written statement and material aspects. Pursuant thereto, they filed another application to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 for further cross examination with reference to averments in the additional written statement which was allowed by the Court below through the order under revision. As can be seen from the record, it is manifest that the application to receive the additional written statement was not seriously contested by the petitioner/plaintiff and therefore, it is not open to him to object for further cross examination of PWs 1 to 3. It is well settled principle of law 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. However, such power is to be sparingly exercised, particularly when the evidence on re-examination of a witness has bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit. In such circumstances, it is always open to the Court and within its discretion to permit to recall such a witness. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, as the earlier Counsel did not prosecute the suit proceedings effectively and he appeared to have failed to cross-examine P.Ws. 1 to 3 effectively, an application was filed to recall them for further cross-examination which was allowed by the trial Court exercising its discretion. Viewed from any angle, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order under revision. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 27TH DECEMBER, 2011. Msnro