SHANTO MICHAEL Vs. SUNNY T MICHAEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The limited question to be considered in this case is whether refusal of the court to recall the witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 of a witness is correct or not.

(2.) The facts in a nut shell is as follows:-

(3.) The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is that it is nothing, but an attempt to fill up lacuna. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that in some moments, witness may be deposing truth and when truth is brought out during cross-examination, witness cannot be recalled to erase the same. It is nothing, but filling up of omissions. In support of his submission, the learned counsel produced the decisions reported in Ram Rati v. Mange Ram and Others, (2016) AIR SC 1343 and Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, (1977) AIR SC 170. The latter citation, the Honourable Supreme Court rendered the decision in a criminal proceedings. In Ram Rati's case, it is only highlighted that the power vested under Order XVIII Rule 17 is a discretionary power of the court, but it shall only be used sparingly.