Court No. 6 (265719) 02.09.2026 (AD 95) (S. Banerjee) CO 2669 of 2026 Susanta Patra Vs. Ananta Patra Mr. Ayanava Bhattacharyya …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an applicant in a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code and is directed against an order being no. 169 dated July 30, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) at Chandannagar, Hooghly in Misc. Case No. 8 of 2018. By the order impugned, the application filed by the petitioner praying for recalling of PW-1 stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in violation of the order of injunction the opposite-parties were making construction. He submits that the petitioner in the meantime came across certain documents which are relevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the miscellaneous case under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code. He submits that the learned trial judge without appreciating such fact rejected the application praying for recall of PW-1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) through, LRs v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate, reported at (2009) 4 SCC 2 410 held that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is to be exercised sparingly and cannot be utilized to fill gaps or omission in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 held that Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code cannot ordinarily be used for reopening evidence or permitting further examination-in-chief or cross-examination, the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code may, in an appropriate and exceptional case, be invoked to reopen evidence or recall a witness where the additional evidence is bona fide, could not be produced earlier for valid and sufficient reasons, and is necessary for a just and effective adjudication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that such power cannot be invoked routinely and must be exercised with circumspection so that the process does not become a device for delaying the proceeding or repairing negligence in the conduct of the case. In the application praying for recall of the PW-1 the petitioner has only stated that he was trying to collect many authorized papers and documents from the beginning but during pendency of evidence he could not collect the same and after the closure of PW-1 and during the pendency of PW-1 he has received many documents from the local Gram Panchayat. 3 The learned trial judge rightly noticed that in the plaint the petitioner did not disclose the precise date on which the documents were supplied for; the date on which they were allegedly received; the steps taken by the petitioner before closure of evidence on August 29, 2023. Learned trial judge recorded a factual finding that no satisfactory explanation has been furnished as to why an appropriate application was not filed immediately upon receipt of those documents. The learned trial judge also observed that reopening of the petitioner’s evidence; further cross-examination of PW-1 by the opposite-parties would delay the disposal of the miscellaneous case. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner sought to fill up the lacunae in evidence by way of recall of PW-1 which is impermissible. After hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this civil revision application stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)