Item- A- 813. sg 17-08-2026 Ct. 6 CO 561 of 2026 Md. Harun Versus Nishat Anjum & Anr. Mr. Sahid Uddin Ahmed Mr. Anupam Bar Md. Nizamuddin Molla Mr. Zinat Sultana …for the petitioner Mr. Abhilash Chatterjee …for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated 15th December, 2025 passed by the learned Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 1110 of 2023. By the order impugned, the application filed by the opposite parties praying for recall of P.W. 1 stood allowed. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties filed an application for recalling of PW-1 in order to prove certain documents which are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the disputes involved in the suit. He further submits that Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure only enables the Court to put questions to the witness and the same cannot be allowed at the instance of a party. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shubhkaran Singh vs. Abhayaraj Singh & Ors. reported in 2025(3) Indian Civil Cases 471 (S.C.). The learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that in meantime, PW-1 was examined and cross-examined upon recall. He submits that for the purpose 2 of effective adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit, recalling of PW-1 is absolutely necessary. PW-1 at the time of cross-examination by the learned advocate for the defendant/petitioner on 6th May, 2026 specifically stated that he can show from the sale deed that the consideration money was transferred for the purchase of the suit property in answer to question no 15. It further appears that at the time of cross-examination of PW-1 on 1st August, 2026 in answer to question no. 53 he has also stated that he has the documents to show that the defendants have admitted him as their landlord and he has money receipt in this regard. After going through the description of the documents which the petitioner sought to produce upon recall, this Court is of the considered view that the same are necessary in order to assist the Court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist the court in rendering justice. The Hon’ble Supreme court in Shubhkaran Singh (supra) in paragraph 10 has specifically observed that if circumstances warrant, an opportunity to a party to recall a witness for examining, cross-examining or re-examining can be granted by a Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusmay v. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 has stated that where the application for recall is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will 3 assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non- production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. After going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the learned Trail Judge exercised its discretion in favour of the opposite party by allowing the prayer for recalling of PW-1 for the purpose of production of certain documents. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion by the learned Trial Judge allowing the prayer to recall the PW-1. For the reasons as aforesaid, this civil revisional application stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)