ORDER
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.
1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in OS.No. 8/1998, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. He had already been examined as RW.1 in IA. No. 295/2003 and his evidence was closed. But, however, he filed an application to recall him as RW.1 for further examination and the said petition came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition.
Heard the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner.
2. None represents the respondent. In fact, the matter came up for hearing on 12.2.2004 and on that day also, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. The respondent was also called absent and set exparte and it was ordered to be posted today. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
3. The suit has been filed by one Sami Subramaniam Chetty and subsequent to the filing of the suit, he died on 11.1.1999 and a petition has been filed by S.Balashanmugam, S/o. Late Sami Subramaniam Chetty, to bring him on record as a legal representative of Late. Sami Subramaniam Chetty and the said petition is pending in IA. No. 1516/1999. It is stated by the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner that S.Balashanmugam is not the son of the plaintiff, Late. Sami Subramaniam Chetty and it is a matter to be adjudicated in the suit. In the said circumstances only, the revision petitioner was examined as RW.1 and after his evidence was over, he filed an application to recall himself for further examination and the same was disallowed by the trial court.
4. The learned Advocate for the revision petitioner submits that there are certain court records, which have got to be produced by the revision petitioner, to substantiate his case, which he could not produce at the time when he was examined, in the first instance. But, however, the request of the revision petitioner was not accepted by the trial court, as the revision petitioner has not given the particulars of the documents and the said order is being questioned in this case.
5. Order 18 Rule 17 CPC states, “The Court may, at any stage of a suit, recall any witness, who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.” On a plain reading of this Section, it would appear that the witness may be recalled at any stage and the court alone can put questions to the witness, if the court thinks fit. But, however, there is no impediment or prohibition for a party also to recall himself or to recall any other witnesses, who has already been examined, to elucidate the matter in issue. As such, the parties to the suit are entitled to recall any witness, who has already been examined, subject to, of course, that there should be proper reason to recall the witness for further examination. In the instant case, the petitioner has stated that he wants to produce further documentary evidence, which are court records, which he could not produce at the time when he was examined and only in the said circumstances, he sought permission of the court to recall himself for further examination. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to recall himself for producing documentary evidence as prayed for, but, denying of such an opportunity to the petitioner would seriously affect the case of the petitioner.
6. In the above said circumstances, I feel that the order passed by the trial court has got to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.
7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.