MUNSHI LAL MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. GOPAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners-defendants have challenged the order dated 28.9.2011, whereby their application preferred under section 151 CPC dated 2.9.2011 is rejected.

(2.) LEARNED senior counsel submits that the defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed by the court below and consequently a new para 17 was inserted in the written statement. The plaintiffs enjoyed the opportunity of filing consequential amendment and filed it. Thereafter by filing an application under section 151 CPC it was prayed that the plaintiffs witnesses be recalled for their limited cross-examination as per the averments of newly added para 17 in the written statement. LEARNED senior counsel submits that the court below has erred in rejecting the said application solely on the ground that the plaintiffs had stated that they do not want to lead any evidence on the basis of amended pleadings. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the defendants have right to ask certain questions from the plaintiffs which will be naturally limited to the newly added paragraph 17 aforesaid. However, to elaborate he submits that the petitioners may ask the questions whether mobile number shown in the advertisement belongs to the plaintiffs or not and other questions limited to the extent indicated above. He submits that merely because the plaintiffs have stated that they do not want to leave evidence, will not deprive the defendants to recall the witnesses. He relied on the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and following judgments:-

(3.) IN Suganchand (supra) also, in the facts and circumstances of that case, it was opined that the court below has erred in rejecting the application for recalling of witness. IN Satya Prakash (supra) also in the given facts and circumstances this Court interfered. The judgment of Calcutta High Court is also passed in the facts and circumstances of the said case.