CHAMPAPRIYA DEVI Vs. DAMYANTI MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsif, First Court, Cuttack, rejecting the plaintiff's petition to recall P. W. 3 for the purpose of re -examination.

(2.) THE plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title in in respect of the schedule 'A' land of the plaint, recovery of possession thereof by evicting defendants 1 and 2 therefrom and for permanent injunction restraining them from coming over the suit land. The suit schedule 'A' land consists of lot Nos. 1 and 2. Lot No. 1 is a part of plot No. 3319 appertaining to Khata No. 645/1 of Cuttack town with an area of Ac. 0. 35 decimals. P. W. 3 is a survey knowing person who measured plot No. 3319 and prepared a map. He was examined by the plaintiff and was cross -examined by defendants 1 and 2. In his chief examination he stated as follows :

(3.) THE right of re -examination of a witness is envisaged in Section 137 read with Section 138 of the Evidence Act and arises only after the conclusion of cross -examination and is directed to the explanation of any part of his evidence during cross -examination which is capable of being construed unfavourably to the party applying for re -examination. The object is to give an opportunity to reconcile the discrepancies, if any, between the statements in examination -in -chief and cross -examination or to explain any statement inadvertently made in cross -examination or to remove any ambiguity in the deposition or suspicion so cast on the evidence by cross -examination. Where there is no ambiguity or where there is nothing to explain, questions put in re -examination with the sole object of giving a chance to the witness to undo the effect of a previous statement should never be allowed. The Queen's Case 2 B and B, pp 284, 297 Lord Tenterdon said :