THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.147 of 2010 Dated:05.02.2010 Between: Banda Venkata Srinivasa Rao. …Petitioner and Smt.Nalluri Subba Raju, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.147 of 2010 ORDER: The defendant in O.S.No.847 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, is the petitioner in this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondents filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner is opposing the suit, inter alia, alleging that there was a compromise between the owners and tenants wherein the respondents agreed to continue tenancy for a further period of six years from 09.12.2001. The trial commenced and respondents closed their evidence. When the matter was coming for defendant’s evidence the application, being I.A.No.1156 of 2009, was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to recall P.W.1. In the affidavit in support of the said application it was alleged that some important aspects were not covered in the cross examination. The Court below relying on the decision of this Court in Allumalla Kannam Naidu v Allumalla Simhachalam[1] dismissed the petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in spite of the fact that petitioner showing that he was diligently prosecuting the case and by inadvertence some important aspects were not covered in the cross examination. The submission cannot be accepted. In Allumalla Kannam Naidu (supra) this Court considered the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and held that on the strength of bald statements contained in the affidavits a witness cannot be recalled. The relevant observations are as under. …In Nagumothu Sriharinath's case (supra), where the ground raised for recalling a witness was that the counsel did not put certain material questions to witness when he was cross examined. It was held to be not a relevant ground for granting permission. No doubt, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagararn at para No. 8 of the order had placed strong reliance on the decision of Nagumothu Sriharinath's case (1997 (5) Andh LT 209) (supra) and had dismissed the said application. In Panthdam Brahmam's case (1997 (2) Andh LT 652) (supra) it was held that under Order 18. Rule 17 of the code, the Court is competent to recall a witness for further examination not only suo motu but also on a petition filed by either party. In Saleh Bin Omer's case (AIR1966AP295) (supra) this Court while dealing with the aspect of recalling a witness held that the Court can suo motu or at instance of party, recall witness and put questions to him and ordinarily no cross examination is allowed upon answer without leave of Court and an opportunity to party to recall witness for examination, cross-examination or re-examination cannot be said to be governed by Order 18, Rule 17 of the code and if circumstances warrant. Court can grant such opportunity under Section 151 of the code. In Shankara Bhat's (AIR 1974 Kant 123) (supra) it was held that the right to put question to the witness under Order 18, Rule 17 is not restricted to action of its own motion and it can recall a witness at the instance of the party. The same view was expressed in Madhubhai Amthalal v. Amthalal Nanalal, AIR 1947 Bombay 156. In the present case as the application is moved by the party under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code for recalling a witness, it is one thing to say that the application is maintainable and it is yet another thing to decide whether in the facts and circumstances of the case such application has to be allowed or not. There is no serious controversy between the parties on the maintainability of the application and the application even at the instance of the party can be maintainable under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. However, in the present case as can be seen from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application except making a bald statement of omission to put some crucial questions, absolutely there are no convincing reasons at all and on the strength of such an affidavit filed in support of the application, I am of the considered opinion that recalling of a witness cannot be ordered and in this view of the matter, absolutely there is no illegality committed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in making the said order. This Court has perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the Interlocutory Application to recall P.W.1. It is vague and contains a bald statement to the effect that further examination of P.W.1 is required. In such circumstances the discretion cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 05.02.2010 vs [1] AIR 2003 AP 239