Order XVIII, Rule 17 CPC – Suit for partition – PW.1 was examined and cross-examined by some of the defendants – counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 remained absent and their cross-examination was recorded as 'nil' – thereafter, on change of counsel, an application was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking recall of PW.1 for cross-examination – Trial Court, in the interest of affording a fair opportunity for effective adjudication, allowed the application – Challenging the same, Civil Revision Petition filed – Held, though it is settled law that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC cannot be invoked to fill up lacunae in evidence or cross-examination, where the principal contesting defendants had not cross-examined the plaintiff at all, the partition suit could not be effectively adjudicated on merits without such cross-examination – the power of recall can be exercised where it is necessary to secure a fair trial and effective adjudication of the real controversy between the parties – the decisions of the Supreme Court prohibiting recall to fill up lacunae were distinguishable on facts – order permitting recall upheld – Civil Revision Petition dismissed. (2026: APHC: 7181).

Order XVIII, Rule 17 CPC – Suit for partition – PW.1 was examined and cross-examined by some of the defendants – counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 remained absent and their cross-examination was recorded as 'nil' – thereafter, on change of counsel, an application was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking recall of PW.1 for cross-examination – Trial Court, in the interest of affording a fair opportunity for effective adjudication, allowed the application – Challenging the same, Civil Revision Petition filed – Held, though it is settled law that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC cannot be invoked to fill up lacunae in evidence or cross-examination, where the principal contesting defendants had not cross-examined the plaintiff at all, the partition suit could not be effectively adjudicated on merits without such cross-examination – the power of recall can be exercised where it is necessary to secure a fair trial and effective adjudication of the real controversy between the parties – the decisions of the Supreme Court prohibiting recall to fill up lacunae were distinguishable on facts – order permitting recall upheld – Civil Revision Petition dismissed. (2026: APHC: 7181).