JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. Drupad Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. N. Alam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At the outset, Mr. Drupad Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he was confused and was not aware that the impugned order is required to be made a part of the petition. He was under the impression that the impugned order is just required to be filed with the petition and not made an Annexure to the petition. 3. This Court taking into account that it is a mistake committed by the counsel and it being well settled principle of law that a party should not suffer on account of the fault of the counsel, this Court proceeds with the disposal of the instant proceedings without taking cognizance of such a mistake. 4. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby an application filed under Sections 137 & 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) for re-examination of the DW1 was rejected. 5. From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondents herein had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code alleging violation of an order dated 28.02.2018 by the petitioner passed in Misc.(J) Case No.100/2018 arising out of Title Suit No.50/2017. In the said proceedings, the respondents had adduced evidence. The petitioner herein who was the opposite party in the said proceedings had also adduced evidence. The cross-examination of the petitioner was done at the residence of the petitioner after the learned Trial Court had issued a Commission. The said cross- examination was carried out on 28.07.2023. At that point of time, the petitioner herein did not have an opportunity to seek re- examination as the Commissioner did not have the power to permit re-examination. It is under such circumstances, on 02.08.2023, the application was filed under Sections 137 & 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code seeking re-examination of the petitioner. It is under such circumstances, on 02.08.2023, the application was filed under Sections 137 & 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code seeking re-examination of the petitioner. Upon filing of the said application, the respondents herein had filed written objection. 6. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 rejected the said application on the ground that the application so filed by the petitioner seeking re-examination did not specify what doubts and discrepancies were required to be clarified through re-examination, and as such, rejected the same. It is under such circumstances, the present proceedings have been initiated. 7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have given an anxious consideration to the materials on record. 8. The right to re-examine the witness by the party calling the witness is inherent. It is settled position of law that if there is a requirement to seek certain clarifications as regards any doubts and discrepancies, the learned Court before whom the cross- examination is being conducted is required to give an opportunity to the party calling the witness to re-examine his or her witness. It is also well settled that in the process of re- examination, if any additional materials are stated with the leave of the Court, the party who had earlier cross-examined would have a right to re-cross-examine the said witness. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rammi vs. State of M. P. , reported in (1999) 8 SCC 649 . Paragraph Nos.16, 17 & 18 are reproduced herein below:- “ 16. The very purpose of re-examination is to explain matters which have been brought down in cross-examination. Section 138 of the Evidence Act outlines the amplitude of re-examination. It reads thus: “138. * * * Direction of re-examination.—The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross- examination; and if new matter is, by permission of the court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.” 17. There is an erroneous impression that re-examination should be confined to clarification of ambiguities which have been brought down in cross-examination. No doubt, ambiguities can be resolved through re-examination. But that is not the only function of the re- examiner. There is an erroneous impression that re-examination should be confined to clarification of ambiguities which have been brought down in cross-examination. No doubt, ambiguities can be resolved through re-examination. But that is not the only function of the re- examiner. If the party who called the witness feels that explanation is required for any matter referred to in cross-examination he has the liberty to put any question in re-examination to get the explanation. The Public Prosecutor should formulate his questions for that purpose. Explanation may be required either when the ambiguity remains regarding any answer elicited during cross- examination or even otherwise. If the Public Prosecutor feels that certain answers require more elucidation from the witness he has the freedom and the right to put such questions as he deems necessary for that purpose, subject of course to the control of the court in accordance with the other provisions. But the court cannot direct him to confine his questions to ambiguities alone which arose in cross-examination. 18. Even if the Public Prosecutor feels that new matters should be elicited from the witness he can do so, in which case the only requirement is that he must secure permission of the court. If the court thinks that such new matters are necessary for proving any material fact, courts must be liberal in granting permission to put necessary questions.” 9. That being a settled principle of law, this Court finds it relevant to take note of that the petitioner herein was cross- examined on commission at his residence and the Commissioner could not have permitted the petitioner to be re-examined unless there was specific authorization given by the learned Trial Court. 10. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application on 02.08.2023. The reason for rejection vide the impugned order, in the opinion of this Court, was not proper taking into account that the right to re-examine being an inherent right upon the party calling the witness, the learned Trial Court ought not to have refused the said right by passing the impugned order. 11. Consequently, this Court interferes with the order dated 18.07.2024 and allows the petition No.5263/2023 filed by the petitioner seeking re-examination of the petitioner. It is observed that if any new materials or facts are mentioned during re- examination, the respondents herein would have a right to cross-examine the petitioner. 12. 11. Consequently, this Court interferes with the order dated 18.07.2024 and allows the petition No.5263/2023 filed by the petitioner seeking re-examination of the petitioner. It is observed that if any new materials or facts are mentioned during re- examination, the respondents herein would have a right to cross-examine the petitioner. 12. It has been brought to the attention of this Court that the next date is fixed in the suit as well as in the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code on 24.04.2025. The parties herein who are duly represented shall draw the attention of the learned Trial Court of the instant order so passed and the learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in that regard and proceed with the disposal of the proceedings in the manner observed herein above.