Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition it directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Jullundur, dated January 19, whereby two witnesses of the Plaintiff - Petitioner have been ordered to be recalled for the purpose of further cross -examination
(2.) THE Plaintiff Petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 80,000/ - from the Defendant -Respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter to be called the Corporation) in lieu of the insurance policy of her husband Shri Amar Nath Mittal, after his death. The suit was contested by the Corporation After the framing of issues, witnesses were examined by the Plaintiff Petitioner. The Plaintiff herself also appeared as her own witness All of them had been subjected to cross examination on behalf of the Corporation. Thereafter, the Corporation also examined a number of witnesses and closed its evidence. Subsequent thereto, on December 10, 1979, a petition was filed on behalf of the Corporation under order XVIII Rule 17, read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter called the Code), for re -calling the Plaintiff Petitioner and her witness Dr. Jugal Kishore for further cross exam nation on behalf of the Corporation. This application was contested by the Plaintiff -Petitioner. However, the same has been allowed by the trial court As a consequence, both the Plaintiff -Petitioner and Dr. Jugal Kishore, have been re -called for further cross -examination This order is the subject matter of the present revision petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has assailed the impugned order on two grounds. Firstly that the same is outside and beyond the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code, and secondly, that both these witnesses who have been ordered to be recalled, had been subjected to through and exhaustive cross -examination and have been sought to be recalled only for the purpose of filling up the lacunae for which the trial Court had no jurisdiction to allow the application and order re -calling of witnesses for further cross -examination.
(3.) AS regards the first contention, there is no dispute that under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code, the witnesses whose statements have been recorded cannot be re -called for the purpose of further cross -examination by the opposite party and the jurisdiction of the Court to re -call any witness can be exercised only where the Court thinks it fit and in the interest of justice to put some further questions to the witness for the purpose of any clarification. This provision cannot be resorted to for the purpose of further cross examination of witness by the opposite party. The learned Counsel for the Respondent, frankly and fairly conceded that this provision cannot be made use of for this purpose. However, it has been urged by him that this provision does not stand in the way of re calling any witness, for Further cross examination by the opposite party, by the Court in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code to support of this proposition, reliance has been placed on Naba Kumar Dass v. Rudra Narayan Jana, A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 95, Sultan Saleh Bin Omer v. Vijayadhani Sirimal : A.I.R. 1966 A.P. 295, Chairman Notified Area Council Bhanjanagar and Anr. v. Kudini Lindaraju Pair : A.I.R. 1974 Ori 17 and Shankar Bhat v. Bheema Bhat, A.I.R 1974 Kar 123. In Naba Kumar Das's case (Supra), some documents were produced by the opposite party after a witness had already been examined. A contention was raised that this witness should be disbelieved as his deposition was inconsistent with the said document. It was held that a witness cannot be disbelieved without his attention being drawn to the document inconsistent with his statement in the witness box and for this purpose, the application could be filed for recalling him for further cross -examination In Sultan Saleh Bin Omer's case (supra), it was held that Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code cannot be pressed into service for re calling a witness for cross examination by a party, but a witness can be ordered to be recalled for providing an opportunity of further cross -examination to the party by the Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code if the circumstances so warrant. In Padam Sen v. The State of Uttar Pradesh . : A.I.R 1961 S.C. 218, it was held that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code are complementary to the powers specifically conferred by the Code and the Court is free to exercise the same in the interest of justice where its exercise is net in any way in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the legislature. ;