LAWS(GAU)-1988-5-5

RUDRESWAR DIHINGIA Vs. PUNDU MURA

Decided On May 06, 1988
Rudreswar Dihingia Appellant
V/S
Pundu Mura Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order, dated 28.11.1987 passed by the Learned Munsiff No. 2, Sibsagar in Title Suit No. 69 of 1984. The present opposite party as plaintiff filed the above suit praying inter alia, a declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession in respect of the suit land. Issues were framed and the present petitioner who was impleaded as the defendant was asked to adduce evidence and accordingly witnesses were examined, cross -examined and discharged. On 3.9.1987 the opposite party filed a petition before the Learned trial court praying for recalling DWs. 1 and 2 for further re -cross -examination on the ground that 'some important and relevant questions were left out to be put to DWs during cross -examination'.

(2.) THE petition was opposed and' the Learned trial court relying on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sultan Soleh Bin Omer v. Vijaya Chand Srimali : AIR 1966 AP 295, allowed the petition and accordingly passed an order for recalling DWs. 1 and 2. Hence the present petition.

(3.) THE first contention of Mr. Barua, Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the ratio laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid decision is not relevant for the present purpose. On perusal of the report, it appears that in the aforesaid case the witnesses were not cross -examined at all due to absence of the Learned Counsel and accordingly it was held that under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, the Court can recall witnesses suo moto or at the instance of the parties for the purpose of putting questions before the court or for cross -examination. But in the case in hand, the DWs. 1 and 2 were examined, cross -examined and discharged and it is not a case where the court passed the impugned order under Order XVIII Rule 7 CPC. Therefore, I hold that the ratio laid down in Sultan Saleh Bin Omar (supra) is not relevant for the present purpose.