Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010095902026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/218/2026 RATUL RANJAN BASU @ BOSE S/O LATE RAMAN CHANDRA BASU @ BOSE, R/O UKKILPATTY, P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS RAMADHIR BASU @ BOSE AND 2 ORS. S/O LATE RAMAN CHANDRA BASU @ BOSE, R/O UKKILPATTY, P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR, CACHAR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MS. S. TODI,MR H K SARMA,MR M SAHEWALLA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M K MISRA(R1), MR. I AHMED(R1) :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 24.08.2026 Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Page No.# 2/4 petitioner. Also heard I. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.2, Cachar, in Misc. Case No.379/2025 arising out of the Title Suit No.08/2014. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial court in T.S. 08/2014. When his witness PW.4 was cross-examined by the respondent, a suggestion was made, which reads as under: “It is not a fact that I did not file false case against the defendant no.1.” 4. The plaintiff states that he was suggested that he had filed a false case against the defendant no.1 and this suggestion was denied by him. But his answer was wrongly written by the court. 5. Therefore, the petitioner being the plaintiff, filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for recalling PW.4 to clear the point. 6. The trial court refused the prayer of the petitioner, rather the trial court had held that it had correctly recorded the said suggestion. 7. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Sahewalla has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410 . Paragraphs 28 and 29 of the said judgment is quoted as under: “28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. 29. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicated hereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination.” Page No.# 3/4 8. Mr. Sahewalla has submitted that the aforesaid suggestion itself shows that it was erroneously recorded. 9. Per contra, Mr. Ahmed has objected to the prayer of the petitioner and relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Subhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh, where the court has held as under: “This Rule provides the Court with a power which is necessary for the proper conduct of a case. If it appears to a court trying the suit at any stage of the proceedings that it is necessary to recall and further examine a witness it can always do so. This power can be exercised even at the stage of writing a judgment by the court. It is, however, proper that this power should not be exercised lightly and the rule is that it should be used sparingly and in exceptional cases only. The power is to be used for removing ambiguities, for clarifying the statement and not for the purposes of filling up the lacuna in a party's case. It is true that the power can be exercised by the Court at its own initiative and may even be so done at the instance of a party. Section 165 of the Evidence Act provides that a Judge may in order to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases in any form at any time of any witness about any fact relevant. The section further provides that the parties shall not be entitled to make any objection to any such question, nor cross- examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question without the leave of the Court. If the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 are read along with the provisions of Section 165 of the Evidence Act it is clear that the power to recall and re-examine a witness is exclusively that of the court trying the suit. The parties to the suit cannot take any objection to the question asked nor can they be permitted to cross-examine any witness without the leave of the court.” 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 11. Order 18 Rule 17 says that the court may at any stage of a suit recall a witness who has been examined and may put such questions to him as the court thinks fit. I Page No.# 4/4 have found that the aforesaid suggestion is incorrect in view of the pleadings available with the record. Moreover, recalling PW.4 for further cross-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. This Court is of the opinion that the prayer of the plaintiff to recall the PW.4 was not meant to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness. Recalling PW.4 is necessary to clear the ambiguity that has arisen in course of his cross-examination. 12. This Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has erroneously oriented himself and arrived at an incorrect finding. The impugned order dated 05.03.2026 passed in Misc. Case No.379/2025 arising out of Title Suit No.08/2014 is set aside. 13. The trial court is directed to recall the PW.4 and to clarify as to what suggestion was actually given to him and what suggestion he had actually denied. With the aforesaid direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant