- (1.) This is a revision against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated 22-8-98 by which he allowed an application of the plaintiff Bank to re-summon PW-2 Utsav Raj Bhandari and PW-3 Manak Chand Jain in order to prove certain documents which were left unexhibited because of lapse on the part of the advocate of plaintiff.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order as well as application of the plaintiff.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to Order 18 Rule 17 CPC a witness cannot be recalled to fill up lacuna. He submitted that an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was moved with an oblique motive to prolong the case as other witnesses were not present and the evidence of the plaintiff was likely to be closed. He relied on AIR 1992 Bombay 406, Steelage Industries Limited v. Smt. Chander Bagai. He also cited 1956 Raj LW 306, Ram Sahai v. Kuberdan and Shyamapada Neogy v. Asoke Kr. Biswas, (1967) 71 Cal WN 747. He submitted that the witnesses have been cross examined and the case of the defendant has been put to them and in case these witnesses are recalled to prove some other documents, the witnesses will be on the one hand filling up the lacuna of the case of the plaintiff and on the other hand serious prejudice will be caused to the defendant. Learned trial Judge after relying on AIR 1966 Andh Pra 295, Sultan Saleh Bin Omer v. Vijayachand Sirimal, AIR 1974 Orissa 17, Chairman Notified Area Council, Bhanjanagar v. Kudini Lingaraju Patra and AIR 1974 Karnataka 123, Shankar Bhatt v. Bhima Bhatt, allowed the application under Section 151 CPC.;