1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 13.04.2026 in I.A.No.75 of 2026 in O.S.No.174 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Kodad.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed for permanent injunction and declaration that the sale deeds are null and void. The written statement was filed by the defendants in February 2014. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the I.A.No.75 of 2026 in O.S.No.174 of 2025 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Sec.151 of CPC to recall DW2 for his further cross-examination. The same was opposed by the defendants by filing their counter. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, has dismissed the said petition on 13.04.2026 and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the trial, the respondents/defendants examined one Mr.Shankarasetty Koteshwar as DW2 and filed his chief affidavit on 25.02.2026 and the matter was posted for chief and cross-examination on 27.02.2026, which was subsequently adjourned to 05.03.2026. It is submitted that on 05.03.2026, the cross-examination of DW2 commenced, but the same could not be completed as the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff reported that he did not intend to continue the cross-examination of DW2 and accordingly, the evidence of DW2 was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff changed his counsel and filed this I.A., for recall of DW2 for further cross-examination. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the true facts and was not entitled for the relief claimed. Challenging the same, this Civil Revision is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the recall of DW2 was sought only for the limited purpose of further cross-examination on material facts which are essential for effective and complete adjudication of the issues arising in the suit. It is submitted that the earlier counsel for the petitioner abruptly reported that he did not intend to continue the cross-examination of DW2, leading to the closure of the evidence of the said witness, which act was neither a conscious waiver nor an informed decision of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner immediately on coming to know of the same, has changed his counsel and engaged a new counsel and filed the present petition seeking to recall DW2, thereby demonstrating his bonafides and the absence of any intention to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that since sufficient cause is shown, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition as it would not have caused any prejudice to the respondents and could have been regulated by conditions. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order dated 13.04.2026 and to allow the I.A.

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the plaintiff was very much represented by a counsel on 05.03.2026 and after brief cross-examination, he had reported that he did not intend to continue the cross examination and hence, the evidence of DW2 was closed. It is submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to mention the reasons for stopping the cross-examination of DW2 in between and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and suppressed the true facts before the Court and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

6. Learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shubhkaran Singh Vs. Abhayraj Singh and Others (2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1028), wherein Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC has been considered, it was held that this Rule is applicable only for getting a clarification by the Court i.e., to enable the Court to get a clarification on any issue or doubt with regard to evidence led by parties by recalling any witness so that the Court itself can put questions and elicit answers and it is not the provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petition was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC. The relevant provision is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

               Court may recall and examine witness: The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.

8. A literal reading of the said provision clearly demonstrates it is the power vested with the Court to recall any witness who has been examined for putting questions to him as the Court deems fit and does not entitle the parties to seek recall of the witness under this provision.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shubhkaran Singh (cited supra), has considered the ambit and purport of the Sections and at Paras-11 and 12 of its judgment as held as under:

                11. This Court in the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, reported at (2009) 4 SCC 410 more particularly para 28 held as under:

               “28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and reexamination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.” (Emphasis supplied)

               12. In the case of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy reported at (2011) 11 SCC 275, this Court discussed the power of the Court under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC. It was held that this power is only for clarification i.e. to enable Court to clarify any issue or doubt, it may have in regard to evidence led by parties by recalling any witness so that the Court itself can put questions to such witness and elicit answers. The relevant paras 9, 10 and 19 read as under:

               “9. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross- examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily a provision enabling the court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo motu, or at the request of any party, so that the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions.

               10. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily a provision enabling the court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo motu, or at the request of any party, so that the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions.

               xxx xxx xxx

               19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs.” (Emphasis supplied).

10. The above decision is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case before this Court. The petitioner has not been able to explain with reasons as to why the cross-examination was stopped and why the witness is sought to be recalled.

11. In view of the same, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.