( 2025:JHHC:24195 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P No. 1096 of 2023 ----- 1. Shivsewak Singh Baraik aged about 76 years. 2. Rajkishore Singh Baraik aged about 68 years. 3. Jitendra Singh Baraik aged about 60 years. All sons of late Manu Singh Baraik, all resident of village-Aara, P.O- Mahillong, PS Tatisilway, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand …. Petitioners Versus 1. Ramlal Mahto 2. Kamlu Mahto 3. Suro Devi, wife of Charku Mahto 4. Sarju Mahto 5. Raju Mahto 6. Barju Mahto Respondent Nos. 5,6 and 7 are sons of Prayag Mahto 7. Bedo Devi, wife of late Sawna Mahto 8. Ramesh Mahto 9. Bidesh Mahto Both sons of Suraj Mahto 10. Parwati Devi, wife of late Sawna Mahto 11. Sohari Devi, wife of late Brij Mahto All resident of village-Mahilong, P.O Mahilong, P.S Tatisilway, District Ranchi 12. Saroj Kumar Singh, son of Raj Layak Singh, resident of village- Mahilong, P.O Mahilong, P.S Tatisilway, District Ranchi 13. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, son of Ram Babu Yadav, resident of Railway Station, Namkum, PO Namkum, P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi 14. Rina Devi, wife of late Anil Kumar 15. Harsh Kumar 16. Tej Pratap Yadav 17. Aditya Pratap All sons of late Anil Kumar, Respondent no. 15, 16, 17 and 18,resident of village-Aara Gate, PO Mahilong, P.S Tatisilway, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Raj Kishore Sahu, Advocate For the OP : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate …...... 08/14.08.2025: Reference is made by the counsel on behalf of the Petitioner to order dated 22.07.2025, wherein direction was made to take steps for ( 2025:JHHC:24195 ) substituted service of notice upon opposite party no.7 by way of paper publication and it has been complied by way of paper publication. A copy of paper publication has been filed before this Court on 08.08.2025.None has appeared on his behalf. Opposite party nos. 15, 16, 17 are represented by learned counsel Mr. Mahesh Tewari who is present before the Court today. Notice has been validly served upon O.P No. 12 vide order dated 24.06.25 and , other opposite parties, and therefore instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition is being heard exparte against them. 3. The petitioner(s)/plaintiff(s) is before this Court against the order dated 06.02.2023 passed in O.S No. 604 of 2010 whereby and where under the petition filed by the defendants/ opposite parties dated 01.04.2022, for recall of witnesses has been allowed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners that the suit was filed in 2010 and the issues were framed on 01.10.2012. Thereafter, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs on the following dates: P.W.1 16.12.2013 P.W.2 24.02.2014 P.W.3 31.03.2014 P.W.4 02.03.2015 5. After these witnesses were examined the petition for recall was filed on 01.04.2022 which has been allowed by impugned order dated 06/02/2023 against which the Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Trial Court without assigning specific reason for recall has allowed the recall petition which is against the law settled by the Apex Court inVadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. SharadChandr Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for opposite party nos. 15, 16 and 17 that the plea of WILL was not in the original plaint and after amendment the recall was necessitated. 8. However, in reply to it, the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the pleadings of WILL were incorporated in the ( 2025:JHHC:24195 ) plaint by amendment dated 19.06.2012 whereas all these witnesses had been examined subsequent to it. 9. Bane of civil adjudication is delay, as the parties do not get adjudication of their legal rights within a reasonable period of time. One of the main reasons for delays is adjournments that are granted too liberally. So far the provision of recall of witness O.18 R-17 is concerned law has been summed up in Ram Rati v. Mange Ram, (2016) 11 SCC 296 it has been held in “11The respondent filed the application under Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC invoking the inherent powers of the court to make orders for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The basic purpose of Rule 17 is to enable the court to clarify any position or doubt, and the court may, either suo motu or on the request of any party, recall any witness at any stage in that regard. This power can be exercised at any stage of the suit. No doubt, once the court recalls the witness for the purpose of any such clarification, the court may permit the parties to assist the court by examining the witness for the purpose of clarification required or permitted by the court. The power under Rule 17 cannot be stretched any further. The said power cannot be invoked to fill up omission in the evidence already led by a witness. It cannot also be used for the purpose of filling up a lacuna in the evidence. “No prejudice is caused to either party” is also not a permissible ground to invoke Rule 17. No doubt, it is a discretionary power of the court but to be used only sparingly, and in case, the court decides to invoke the provision, it should also see that the trial is not unnecessarily protracted on that ground.” 10. In the above stated position of law, there cannot be any doubt that recall of witness is permissible in extraordinary circumstance and only to subserve the ends of justice and is not intended to fill up defence lacunas. 11. In the present case, the plaintiff’s witnesses are sought to be recalled after more than seven years of their examination. The learned Trial Court allowed the petition in a most mechanical manner, without assigning any cogent reason or appreciating the hardship such an order would cause to the parties and their witnesses, who would be compelled ( 2025:JHHC:24195 ) to reappear for evidence. The fundamental principles governing the recall of witnesses, as well as the delay such recall would inevitably cause in the disposal of the case, were completely overlooked. Accordingly, the impugned order is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. Civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the judicial Academy Jharkhand to sensitize officers while considering such petitions. Let a copy of it be also placed before,the Administrative Judge of the officer concerned for kind perusal. (GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Sandeep/Abha/-