( 2025:JHHC:19551 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 246of 2025 Krishna Gopal Singh, aged abut 49 years, son of late Ambika Prasad Singh, resident of village Chakla, P.O. Chakla, P.S. Ormanjhi, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ………………….Petitioner Versus 1. Durga Prasad Singh, son of late Tikait Bisheshwar Singh, resident of village Neori Vikas, P.o. Neorivikas, P.S. Sadar, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2. Anand Gopal, son of late Ambika Prasad Singh, resident of village Chakla, P.O. Chakla, P.S. Ormanjhi, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand .…… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate 06/Dated: 17/07/2025 Inspite of valid service of notice, O.P. No.2 has chosen not to appear in view of that this matter is being heard in absence of the O.P. No.2. 2. Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division-XXV, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 312 of 2020. 4. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff namely, Durga Prasad Singh has instituted Original Suit No. 312 of 2020 in the court of the learned Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi against the defendants praying therein a decree for declaration of plaintiff ( 2025:JHHC:19551 ) 2 right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land and in alternative if found dispossessed then he may be put in possession over the same by evicting the defendant from there. He further submits that said suit after admission of the said suit the defendant has appeared and filed written statement thereafter evidence of the plaintiff has been closed and thereafter the defendants have also adduced oral and documentary evidence and have examined several witnesses and the case was fixed for evidence of the defendants and at that stage the plaintiff filed a petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C. to recall the witness namely, Durga Prasad Singh to prove some documents which has been filed earlier by the plaintiff in the above suit. He submits that the said petition was not diligently pressed by the plaintiff and the learned court by order dated 15.05.2024 has been pleased to dismiss the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C for non prosecution. He submits that thereafter the plaintiff filed another petition to recall order dated 15.05.2024 and the learned court by the impugned order dated 16.11.2024 has been pleased to allow the recall petition and further allowed the petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC directing the plaintiff to adduce evidence without hearing the defendant and that has been wrongly done by the learned court. 5. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 submits that the learned court has exercised the discretionary power and in view of that there is no illegality in the impugned power. 6. It is an admitted position that the petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C was filed by the plaintiff which was dismissed for default by order dated 15.05.2024 and thereafter recall petition has filed which has been allowed by the impugned order. From perusal of impugned order it transpires that the learned court has been pleased to recall the order dated 15.05.2024 and directed the plaintiff to adduce evidence which clearly shows that there ( 2025:JHHC:19551 ) 3 was no hearing after recall of order dated 15.05.2024 on the petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. In view of that the impugned order is not in accordance with law and accordingly the part of impugned order dated 16.11.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 312 of 2020 by which direction has been issued to adduce evidence, is set aside. 7. The petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. is restored to the file of the learned court and the learned court will decide the same after providing opportunity of hearing to both the sides in accordance with law. 8. This C.M.P. is allowed in above terms and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-