25.08.2026 Sl. No.: 97 Court No.655 BM C.O. 8 of 2026 ARUP KUMAR DEY VS GOURAB GAIN Mr. Aritra Shankar Ray ... for the petitioner 1. Learned Advocate representing the defendant/petitioner is present. 2. This civil revisional application has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/opposite party on 13.11.2025 seeking recall of PW- 1 came to be allowed. 3. It appears from the materials on record that the plaintiff/opposite party had filed an application before the learned Trial Court invoking Order XVIII Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for recall of PW-1 for the purpose of proving a particular portion of a document which, according to the plaintiff, had inadvertently remained untendered during the examination of the said witness. 4. The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the said application, is that an agreement dated 25.08.2001 had already been marked as Exhibit-1 in the suit. According to the plaintiff, there is an endorsement on the reverse side of the said document recording receipt of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by the defendant on 09.02.2022. It is 2 contended that, due to inadvertence and inadvertent omission at the time of examination of PW-1 and tendering of the document in evidence, the reverse side of the stamp paper containing the aforesaid endorsement was not specifically tendered or proved before the learned Trial Court. 5. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW-1 had already been concluded and, therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to approach the learned Trial Court with the aforesaid application seeking recall of the witness so that the omitted portion of the document could be properly brought on record and the witness could depose with regard thereto. 6. The learned Advocate appearing for the defendant/petitioner, however, has seriously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the plaintiff had been afforded sufficient opportunity during the examination of PW-1 to prove the agreement and the contents thereof. According to the petitioner, there was no justification for permitting the plaintiff to recall the witness at a belated stage merely to fill up an alleged lacuna in the evidence. It is further contended that the plaintiff had failed to take appropriate steps at the relevant stage for proving the endorsement appearing on the reverse side of the agreement, and such omission cannot subsequently be permitted to be cured by recalling the witness. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and have carefully gone through the impugned order and the materials available on record. 3 8. It appears that the learned Trial Court, while allowing the application for recall, has not finally adjudicated upon the evidentiary value or admissibility of the endorsement appearing on the reverse side of the document. The limited purpose of recalling PW-1 is to afford an opportunity to the plaintiff to place the said aspect of the document before the Court in accordance with law. 9. In my considered view, mere recall of a witness does not, by itself, amount to acceptance or proof of the contents of the document. The plaintiff will still be required to establish the relevance, admissibility and evidentiary value of the endorsement in accordance with law. At the same time, the defendant/petitioner will have full opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 on the said aspect and to raise all permissible objections before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, no prejudice of an irreversible nature is likely to be caused to the defendant by permitting such limited recall. 10. The power to recall a witness is required to be exercised judiciously and for advancing the cause of justice. Where the Court finds that an inadvertent omission can be rectified without causing serious prejudice to the opposite party, and the opposite party is afforded an adequate opportunity to meet the additional evidence, such procedural order ordinarily does not warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 11. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion after considering the circumstances pleaded by the plaintiff. The defendant/petitioner will have an adequate opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 in respect of the endorsement sought to be proved and to contest the same on all grounds available in law. The ultimate evidentiary value of such endorsement shall, of course, be determined by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage, uninfluenced by the order permitting recall. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order dated 05.12.2025 which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, I find no merit in the present civil revisional application. 14. The revisional application is, therefore, dismissed. 15. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the question of recall of PW-1 and shall not affect the learned Trial Court's independent consideration of the admissibility, proof or evidentiary value of the endorsement appearing on the reverse side of the document, which shall be decided in accordance with law. 16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court. 17. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order if applied for be given to the parties after payment of requisite fees. ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )