JUDGMENT
K.P. Mohapatra, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsif, First Court, Cuttack, rejecting the plaintiff’s petition to recall P. W. 3 for the purpose of re-examination.
2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title in in respect of the schedule ‘A’ land of the plaint, recovery of possession thereof by evicting defendants 1 and 2 therefrom and for permanent injunction restraining them from coming over the suit land. The suit schedule ‘A’ land consists of lot Nos. 1 and 2. Lot No. 1 is a part of plot No. 3319 appertaining to Khata No. 645/1 of Cuttack town with an area of Ac. 0. 35 decimals. P. W. 3 is a survey knowing person who measured plot No. 3319 and prepared a map. He was examined by the plaintiff and was cross-examined by defendants 1 and 2. In his chief examination he stated as follows :
“…Plot No. 3319 is divided into four parts. The plaintiff is in possession of plot No, 3319/1. Plot No. 3319/2 is possessed by the defendant No. 1. Haladhara Panda is in possession of plot No. 3319/3 and plot No. 3319/4 is possessed by Baishnab Charan Nanda. The plaintiffs are in possession of 34 decimals in plot No 3319/1. The defendant No. 1 is in possession of 139 decimals of land in plot No. 3319/2. Haladhara Panda is possessing an area of 132 decimals in plot No. 3319/3 and Baishnab Charan Nanda is possessing an area of 219 decimals in plot No. 3319/4. There is boundary wall around the land of defendant No. 1. The land of the defendant No. 1 is situated to the north of the land of the plaintiff.”
In cross-examination the witness made the following statements :
“…The boundary which I have stated above belonging to the plaintiffs measures 34 decimals. The plaintiffs have got three rooms on the adjoining north of the 34 decimals in plot no. 3319.”
Two days after the close of the evidence of P. W. 3 the plaintiffs filed a petition to the effect that the statement made by the witness and underlined above is ambiguous and requires clarification. Therefore, opportunity should be given to them to re-examine P. W. 3 and elicit clarificatory explanation so as to remove the ambiguity. After hearing both parties the trial Court held that the statement is not ambiguous and so refused to re-examine the witness.
3. Mr. Mohanty appearing for the plaintiffs urged that the statement made by the witness and underlined above does not clearly indicate as to whether the three rooms are on plot No. 3319/1 in possession of the plaintiffs and adjoin the northern boundary thereof or they exist outside the aforesaid plot and beyond the northern boundary. Therefore, in order to explain the position, namely, whether the three rooms are inside plot No. 3319/1 or outside it, re-examination of the witness is essential.
4. The right of re-examination of a witness is envisaged in Section 137 read with Section 138 of the Evidence Act and arises only after the conclusion of cross-examination and is directed to the explanation of any part of his evidence during cross-examination which is capable of being construed unfavourably to the party applying for re-examination. The object is to give an opportunity to reconcile the discrepancies, if any, between the statements in examination-in-chief and cross-examination or to explain any statement inadvertently made in cross-examination or to remove any ambiguity in the deposition or suspicion so cast on the evidence by cross-examination. Where there is no ambiguity or where there is nothing to explain, questions put in re-examination with the sole object of giving a chance to the witness to undo the effect of a previous statement should never be allowed. The Queen’s Case 2 B & B, pp 284, 297 Lord Tenterdon said :
“I think that counsel has a right upon re-examination to ask all questions which, may be proper to draw forth an explanation of the sense and meaning of the expressions used by the witness on cross-examination, if they be in themselves doubtful, and also of the motive by which the witness was induced to use those expressions, but I think he has no right to go further, and to introduce matter new in itself and not wanted for the purpose of explaining either the expressions or the motives of the witness.”
The scope of recalling a witness for re-examination-in-chief is, however, distinct. Under ordinary circumstances it is not necessary nor permissible to allow a witness once examined and dismissed by a party to be recalled, for it is expected that the witness has been interrogated on all material points. Unforeseen situation may, however, develop and there seems also to be inadvertent omissions in such cases the Court may in its discretion allow a witness to be recalled for re-examination-in-chief, in which case, the adversary has a right of re-cross-examination.
5. Reverting to the case in hand, it appears from the statements made by P. W. 3 that the plaintiffs are in possession of Ac. 0. 34 decimals of land in plot No 3319/1. He admitted that there are three rooms on the northern boundary of the aforesaid plot. But by making the underlined statement, he was not specific as to whether those three rooms existed on the land in possession of the plaintiffs adjoining their northern boundary or on the land of defendant No. 1 bearing plot No. 3319/2 beyond the plaintiffs’ northern boundary. Thus, some amount of ambiguity has been left unanswered which requires clarification. Unless the ambiguity is removed, it will not be possible to appreciate the statement made by him and it will not be clear as to whether those three rooms are part and parcel of the land in the possession of the plaintiffs or they stand on the land in possession of defendant No. 1. In order to explain the ambiguity, the learned Munsif ought to have given an opportunity to the plaintiffs by way of re-examination of P. W. 3.
6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the order impugned in this Court cannot be supported. The plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to explain the ambiguity which is inherent in the underlined statement made by P. W. 3. Unless the ambiguity is cleared, there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice.
7. In the result, the civil revision is allowed, but without costs. The impugned order is vacated. The learned Munsif, First Court, Cuttack, shall give an opportunity to the plaintiffs to re-examine P.W. 3 in order to explain the ambiguity made in the statement underlined and no more. The records shall be sent back at once.