JUDGMENT : SYAM KUMAR V.M., J. 1. This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.371 of 2015 before the Munsiff Court, Kattappana, challenging the common order dated 09.03.2018 disposing of I.A.No.425 of 2018 and I.A.No.435 of 2018 filed in the said O.S. 2. O.S.No.371 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff for realisation of an amount of Rs.2,20,737/- with interest and costs thereon from the respondents/defendants in the suit. The petitioner, a registered Society, had disbursed certain amounts to the respondents who are members registered with the self-help group affiliated with the petitioner. Agreements had also been entered into between the parties in the said respect wherein the respondents had agreed to repay in 24 instalments with interest. Since the respondents defaulted on payment, the suit was filed for recovery of the amount. Respondents entered their appearance in the suit and had filed written statements disputing the claim. The suit then proceeded to trial, and petitioner had let in evidence. In the course of the trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.425 of 2018 seeking permission to produce 6 documents which the petitioner stated had only been received after the commencement of the trial. A petition for reopening the evidence by recalling the witness for letting in further evidence was also filed as I.A.No.435 of 2018. The respondents filed objections to the said I.As. The learned Munsiff, vide Common Order dated 09.03.2018, dismissed both the I.As. Aggrieved by the said Common Order, this O.P.(C) has been filed. 3. O.P.(C) was admitted to file on 02.04.2018, and an interim stay of further proceedings in the O.S. was granted. The matter had been pending since then. 4. Heard Sri.George Mathew, Advocate for the petitioner. Though service is complete against respondents, there is no appearance on their behalf. 5. The short question that comes up for consideration is whether the learned Munsiff erred in rendering the impugned order refusing permission to recall and examine PW1 again to mark the documents which are said to have been subsequently received by the petitioner. 6. The learned Munsiff had, in the impugned Common Order, noted that PW1 had been examined on 14.02.2018 and Exhibits A1 to A11 documents had been marked through him. He had been cross-examined and thereafter, the case was adjourned for the petitioner/plaintiff's evidence on various dates. 6. The learned Munsiff had, in the impugned Common Order, noted that PW1 had been examined on 14.02.2018 and Exhibits A1 to A11 documents had been marked through him. He had been cross-examined and thereafter, the case was adjourned for the petitioner/plaintiff's evidence on various dates. It is during the said period that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed the above I.As seeking to reopen the evidence, recall the witness, and accept the documents proposed to be marked through him. The learned Munsiff had concluded that the documents sought to be introduced by recalling PW1 were available when PW1's affidavit was prepared and affirmed, and even before the filing of the suit. The learned Munsiff also concluded that it is not as if new facts have been discovered subsequently, which were not within the knowledge of PW1 when the affidavit in evidence was prepared. A finding that after the cross-examination of PW1 certain lapses in his evidence were noted, and the same had compelled the petitioner/plaintiff to file the above application, was also arrived at by the learned Munsiff. Based on such reasoning, the learned Munsiff had refused permission to recall the witness and to mark the documents through him. That Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is not intended to be used to fill up an omission in the evidence of the plaintiff who had already been examined, and the said provision is only capable of enabling the court to clarify any doubts in the case, which had also been pointed out by the learned Munsiff in the impugned order. Holding thus that the petition lacked bona fides, the learned Munsiff had dismissed the same. Reliance was also placed by the learned Munsiff on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (D) Through LRs. and others, AIR 2016 SC 1343 and in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Through LRs. v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate, AIR 2009 SC 1604 . 7. It is relevant to note that the petitioner/plaintiff’s evidence had not been closed on the date on which the I.As. were filed, i.e., on 01.03.2018. The matter was posted for further evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff, if any, as a last chance. The petitioner had specifically contended in the I.As that the additional documents sought to be produced were not in their possession at the time of institution of the suit. were filed, i.e., on 01.03.2018. The matter was posted for further evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff, if any, as a last chance. The petitioner had specifically contended in the I.As that the additional documents sought to be produced were not in their possession at the time of institution of the suit. The learned Munsiff, in the impugned order, has, however, concluded that the relevant documents were already in the petitioner's possession. No reasoning, however, is forthcoming in the impugned order as to how and on what basis the said conclusion had been arrived at by the learned Munsiff. The reason put forth by the petitioner in the I.A. while seeking recall is not seen adequately adverted to or discussed in the impugned order. 8. Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to recall and examine any witness at any stage of the proceedings , if such recall is necessary for a just decision of the case. Thus, whether a recall is necessary or not must be specifically examined based on the factors/reasons put forth to justify such a recall. That the petitioner/plaintiff is a registered Society having offices across the State of Kerala and a Head Office at Thiruvananthapuram is not disputed. It is a specific case of the petitioner in the I.As that the documents sought to be marked after recall had been safely retained at the Head Office and could not be procured earlier. The learned counsel points out that due to transfer of the concerned officer, the process of calling for documents from the Head Office and presenting it before the court got delayed. In the light of the said specific reason pointed out, the veracity of the same ought to have been adverted to. It could have been accepted or declined. The applications ought not to have been dismissed solely on the premise that the relevant documents were available to the petitioner at the relevant time. No basis is seen to conclude at the relevant stage that there had been a lacuna in the evidence put forth so far. Further, the fact that the matter stood posted for further evidence of the petitioner also ought to have been taken note of to ascertain whether a fair and reasonable chance could be extended to a plaintiff, to ensure that relevant evidence is not shut out altogether. Further, the fact that the matter stood posted for further evidence of the petitioner also ought to have been taken note of to ascertain whether a fair and reasonable chance could be extended to a plaintiff, to ensure that relevant evidence is not shut out altogether. The reasoning contained in the Exhibit P7 order, especially that the documents were available with the petitioner, reflects non-consideration of the specific contention raised by the petitioner. The dictum and precedents relied on by the learned Munsiff do not envisage a departure from the basic principle laid down in Order XVIII Rule 17, that the recall and examination of any witness may be done at any stage of the proceedings if such recall is necessary for a just decision of the case. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. The learned Munsiff is directed to consider the applications I.A.No.425 of 2018 and I.A.No.435 of 2018 filed in O.S.No.371 of 2015 afresh in the light of the observations herein above. O.P.(C) is disposed of as above. All I.As are closed.