ANANDA RAM KOLEY Vs. DILIP MAJHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge of the defendant/petitioner in the present revisional application is against an order whereby the plaintiffs/opposite parties were permitted to recall P.W. 1 for proving two title deeds of the plaintiffs/opposite parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the application for recall, under section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, ought not to have been allowed to permit the plaintiffs to fill up their lacunae, since the purpose of such application and the pari materia provision of Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure might be, at best, to clarify any doubts in the mind of the court, but not to fill up lacunae on the part of a party.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the plaintiffs did not give any satisfactory explanation as to such delay in production of the documents-inquestion.