THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.423 OF 2011 25.03.2011 Between: Nagarjuna Financiers (Regd) Chittoor, Rep.by its Managing Partner P.Jayachandra Reddy …Petitioner AND Annapoorna Agro Machine Service, Rep. by its Proprietor R.Sambasiva Naidu …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.423 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner firm is a plaintiff in O.S.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The suit was filed for recovery of amount from the respondents/defendants based on a promissory note, dated 06.03.2000. At the stage of trial, the Managing Partner filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination deposing to the plaint case. At that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.881 of 2007 under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) commend the plaint, the legal notice which preceded the suit and the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of P.W.1. The amendment sought was actually the date of promissory notice is 08.03.2000 but by mistake it was typed as 06.03.2000. The trial Court partly allowed the said application allowing the amendment of the plaint, but rejected the prayer for amendment of affidavit of P.W.1 and the office copy of the legal notice, which was marked as Exhibit A.7 and the said order has become final. The petitioner filed yet another application being I.A.No.710 of 2010 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with 151 of CPC to recall P.W.1 to elicit about the date of promissory note. By impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved by which, the present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Counsel for petitioner submits that the Court below exercised jurisdiction vested in it erroneously and the rejection of prayer to recall P.W.1 would result in miscarriage of justice. A perusal of the material on record would show that in the legal Notice Ex.A7, dated 06.11.2002, the plaint and chief affidavit of P.W.1, the petitioner admittedly mentioned that the defendants executed promissory note on 06.03.2000 and not on 08.03.2000. In I.A.No.881 of 2007 they sought amendment. The amendment was allowed only to the extent of altering the date in the plaint. The order has become final. Therefore, by now recalling P.W.1 it amounts to permitting him to fill up the lacunae. As held by Supreme Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate[1], a witness cannot be recalled to fill up lacunae in the evidence. In that view of the matter, the impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 25.03.2011 Pln [1] (2009) 4 SCC 410 : AIR 2009 SC 1604