RECTOR PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs. SARASWATI ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition assails the order dated 03.12.2018 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jeypore in C.S. No. 222 of 2016 allowing an application filed by the plaintiffs-opp. parties to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination.

(2.) Drawing my attention to the petition dated 10.08.2018 for recall of P.W.1 (Annexure-2 series), who is the plaintiff no.2, Mr. Narasingh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff no.2 in his petition prays for correction of inadvertent mistakes in the evidence of P.W. 1, which is stated to have been wrongly recorded at para-44, 48, 49 and 65 of his deposition (cross-examination). For ready reference, the same is quoted as under:

(3.) Learned Civil Judge without considering the scope and ambit of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. has passed the impugned order. It his submission that depositions were recorded by the Presiding Officer in accordance with the statement of P.W.1 and after the deposition is recorded, the same was read over and explained to him in Odia by the Presiding Officer to which also he has given an endorsement acknowledging the same by signing the deposition. Although an objection to the petition to recall of P.W.1 for correction of deposition under Annexure-2 series was filed stating that the same is not permissible under law, as P.W. 1 wants to fill up the lacuna in his deposition, learned Civil Judge has passed the impugned order without considering the same. He further submits that learned Civil Judge while passing the impugned order has not assigned any reason as to why he has issued direction to recall P.W. 1 for further cross-examination, when no such prayer is made by the defendants. In support of his case, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Rati -v- Mange Ram (Dead) through legal representatives and others , 2016 11 SCC 296, wherein it has been observed at paragraphs-10 and 11 as follows: