RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. SHANTI GODIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court on 31st August. 1995 directed the Addl. District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur to make an enquiry on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act submitted by the defendant-appellant before this Court. The affidavits and other documents produced by the parties before this Court were sent to the Addl. District Judge, with the direction to send his report alongwith the statement of witnesses and documents if any, within a period of four months. In pursuance of this direction the learned Addl. District Judge commenced the enquiry and the petitioner Rajendra Kumar was examined. Subsequently an application was moved for recalling this is fitness as certain documents had been produced which were either written by him or signed by him and it was found necessary that he should be further cross-examined. This application was rejected on 1.8-1995. The petitioner moved a review application and this was disposed on 6.9.1995 and by this order it has been clarified that the further cross-examination of the petitioner would not be restricted to be questioned by the Court but he would be cross- examined by the opposite side. This order has been challenged by (the petitioner in this revision petition. According to him, a witness can be recalled only under the provisions of Order 18, Rule 17 CPC and after being recalled it is only the Court is which can put questions to him as it thinks fit. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on Ram Sahai v. Kuberdan,1956 RajLW 306. It has been held that Order 18, Rule 17, CPC authorises the Court to recall a witness for purposes of putting questions which the Court itself might think necessary and it does not authorise a party who has already been cross-examined before recalling for further cross- examination by the party. Another case is M/s Pabudan Hiralal v. Shri Mahesh Industries and others, 1970 AIR(Raj) 59 wherein considering the provisions of Order 18, Rule 17. CPC, it has been observed that there is no prohibition in recalling a plaintiffs witness as a fitness of the defendant with the leave of the Court. This should be permitted only for specific purposes for which he is being recalled.

(2.) Order 18, Rule 17 CPC permits the Court at any stage of the suit to recall any witness which has been examined and may put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. The witness can be recalled suo moto by the Court and also on the application of a party. The provisions in this rule allow the Court to put such questions as it thinks fit but there is no prohibition on allowing any party to further cross-examine the witness if the Court grants leave to do so. It is only with the leave of the Court that further cross- examination of the witness can be allowed. In his particular case, when further documents have been allowed to be produced theft if further cross- examination of a witness in respect of those documents is necessary then the permission granted by the Court does not become contrary to the provisions of law. If the Court has given the leave, then the witness can be further cross- examined. It may also be stated that if there is no provision in the Code for the further cross-examination of a witness then the inherent powers of the Court can be invoked for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Such powers can be exercised when there is no specific provision in the Code.

(3.) In view of this, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.