GANENDRA NARAYAN ROY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against Order No. 59 dated 15th March, 1984, passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Third Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 110 of 1982. By the aforesaid impugned order, the learned Munsif allowed the prayer of the plaintiff opposite party to get the husband of the plaintiff to be recalled for further examination-in-chief as P. W. No. 1. Rule has been issued on this application for revision and the application is heard as a contested application upon notice to the opposite party who had already lodged a caveat before this Court. ( 2 ) IT appears that the said Title Suit No. 110 of 1982 was instituted by the plaintiff opposite party against the defendant petitioner for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, inter alia on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff for her own use and occupation. It also appears that at a later stage, the defendant made an application for amendment of the written statement and such application was allowed. By the said amendment of the written statement, the defendant has contended that the plaintiff had given the defendant and assurance that the defendant would not be evicted from the disputed premises and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to seek for eviction of the defendant on the score of promissory estoppel. It appears that the husband of the plaintiff was examined as P. W. No. 1 and he were also cross-examined. Therefore, the defendant was also examined and the case was set down for hearing. At that stage, the plaintiff made an application before the learned Munsif for recalling the said P. W. No. 1 for examination-in-chief on the ground that through inadvertence two important questions could not be put to the said witness, namely, whether the plaintiff had any other reasonably suitable accommodation and whether or not the plaintiff had given any assurance to the defendant for not evicting him. The defendant put a petition of objection to the said prayer of the plaintiff and it was contended by the defendant that after the witnesses were examined and the evidences were closed, the plaintiff should not be permitted to recall the P. W. No. 1 for further examination for putting the said two questions on the score of omission of the plaintiff to put in evidence that the plaintiff did not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation and/or the plaintiff did not give any assurance to the defendant that he would not be evicted from the disputed premises. The defendant had acquired a valuable right in the suit because of such omission and the plaintiff should not permit to fill up the lacuna by recalling the P. W. No. 1 for further examination. ( 3 ) THE learned Munsif, however, allowed the said application of the plaintiff to recall the P. W. No. 1. Unfortunately the learned Munsif did not give any reason as to why he was not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the defendant in the petition of objection and the application was allowed by the learned Munsif simply on the finding that he did not find any reason to disallow the petition for recalling the P. W. No. 1 for examination-in-chief. ( 4 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court may recall and examine any witness at any stage and the court may put such questions to him as the Court may deem fit and proper but a party has no right to ask for examination of witnesses only for the purpose of filing up the lacuna in the case made out by the concerned party in the suit. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has submitted that in the instant case, the witnesses for the parties had been examined and the suit was fixed for hearing. At that stage, the plaintiff understood that the plaintiff had failed to make out a case for which a decree for eviction could be passed in plaintiffs favour. Precisely for the purpose of filling upon the lacuna in the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, the said prayer for recalling the witness was made. At that stage, the plaintiff understood that the plaintiff had failed to make out a case for which a decree for eviction could be passed in plaintiffs favour. Precisely for the purpose of filling upon the lacuna in the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, the said prayer for recalling the witness was made. In such circumstances, the Court should not have allowed the said prayer to cause prejudice to the defendant. In support of this contention, Mr. Roy Chowdhury has referred to a decision of this Court made in the case of (1) Shyamapada Neogy v. A. K. Biswas reported in 71 Calwn 747. It has been held in the said decision that under Order XVIII, Rule 17, the Court can recall any witness at any stage even at the instance of a party, with a view to clearing up any ambiguity, or when an unforeseen situation has developed, or when an inadvertent omission is there, provided that it causes no surprise or prejudice to the other party. When however the other party has dismissed its witness and closed its evidence, such recall will cause it surprise and the gravest of prejudice and such recalling will also not be permitted if the sole purpose is to fill up the lacuna in evidence under the pretext of re-examination-in-chief. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has also contended that the learned Judge has not really applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and has not given any reason as to why the defendant's contention was not accepted by him. Only mechanically he has allowed the application of the plaintiff on an omnibus finding that he did not find any reason to disallow the petition for recalling the P. W. No. 1 for examination-in-chief. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has submitted that as the sole purpose of the plaintiff was to fill up the lacuna at a later stage, the Court should not have allowed the said application for recalling the said witness for re-examination. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has also submitted that the learned Munsif has also indicated in the impugned order that on 27th March, 1984 the said P. W. No. 1 would be re-examined and the arguments of the case would be advanced by the parties. Mr. Roy Chowdhury has also submitted that the learned Munsif has also indicated in the impugned order that on 27th March, 1984 the said P. W. No. 1 would be re-examined and the arguments of the case would be advanced by the parties. He has submitted that even assuming that in the facts of the case, re-examination of P. W. No. 1 was warranted, the Court should have granted reasonable opportunity to the defendant to adduce further evidence in view of further evidence of P. W. No. 1 and the Court was wrong in directing that after such re-examination of P. W. No. 1 parties would advance arguments. ( 5 ) MR. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff opposite party has, however, submitted that although the learned Munsif has not given adequate reasons as to why the defendant's objection was not acceptable to him, the order passed by the learned Munsif is quite justified and there is no occasion to interfere with the said order in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that Order 18, Rule 2 has undergone Amendment in 1976 and sub-rule (4) has been inserted by such amendments in 1976. Sub-rule (4) Rule 2 of Order 18 provides for "notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage". He has submitted that apart Rule 17 of Order 18, the Court under sub-rule (4) of Rule 2 of Order 18 has power to permit any party to examine any witness at any stage and permission to examine also necessarily implies further examination of re-examination. Referring to Rule 17 of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that the said Rule also enables the Court to recall and examine any witness if the Court feels that such examination of the witness is necessary for the disposal of the suit. He has submitted that under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, it is essential for the plaintiff for obtaining a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement to establish that the plaintiff has no other suitable alternative accommodation. The plaintiff has pleaded such case in her pleading and an issue has also been framed to that effect. He has submitted that under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, it is essential for the plaintiff for obtaining a decree for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement to establish that the plaintiff has no other suitable alternative accommodation. The plaintiff has pleaded such case in her pleading and an issue has also been framed to that effect. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that through inadvertence, two vital questions were omitted to be put to the said P. W. No. 1, namely the husband of the plaintiff. Mr. Mukehrjee has submitted that by amendment, the defendant has introduced a new case that the plaintiff had assured the defendant not to evict and as such the plaintiff was bound by such assurance. Hence it is also necessary for the plaintiff to lead evidence on the said specific case sought to be introduced by the defendant by way of amendment. If a Counsel of a party through inadvertence omits to put the basic question required to be proved through a witness and if such omission is detected and the party makes an application to the Court for permission to re-examination such witness, the Court has ample power to allow such re-examination of the concerned witness. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that by putting the said questions by way of re-examination of the said witness, no surprise is going to be sprung upon the defendant because the plaintiff did not accept the defendant's case and had always asserted that the plaintiff had no other suitable alternative accommodation and she had right to evict the defendant on the score of reasonable requirement. Mr. Mukherjee has referred to a Bench decision of this Court made in the case of (2) Provash Chandra Chatterjee v. Chand Mohan Basak reported in 81 Calwn 814. In this case this Court in disposing of the appeal sent the case back on remand for allowing the parties to lead evidence on a specific issue, namely, whether the plaintiff had any other suitable alternative accommodation in view of the fact that without such case being established by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not entitled to get any decree for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Mr. Mr. Mukherjee, has submitted that since this Court felt that for getting a decree on the ground of reasonable requirement, the fact that there was no other suitable alternative accommodation available to the plaintiff had to be established the ends of justice demanded that the parties should be given reasonable opportunity to lead evidence on that point specifically and precisely for the said purpose even at the appellate stage, an order of remand was made by this Court in appeal. Mr. Mukherjee has also contended that when due to inadvertence of the lawyer, a witness is not properly examined and specific questions are not put to such witness a party should not be compelled to suffer prejudice for such omission of the lawyer and the Court has power to allow re-examine of the said witness on the prayer of the party. For this contention, Mr. Mukjherjee has referred to a decision made in the case of (3) Smt. Ajit Kour and Ors. v. The Punjab State and Ors. Reported in AIR 1981 Punjab 157. It has been held in the said case that when a party omits to put a question, the witness may be recalled and may be asked the question. He has submitted that not only the Court has suo moto power to recall any witness for examination for the ends of justice. But the Court has also power to allow examination of any witness and/or re-examination at the instance of the party if the Court is satisfied that for ends of justice, such examination is necessary. ( 6 ) MR. Roy Choudhury in answer to the said contention of Mr. Mukherjee has, however, submitted that sub-rule (4) of Rule 2 of Order 18 only envisages that the Court may for reasons to be recorded direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage, but the said provision does not deal with recalling a witness after such witness has been examined and Rule 17 of Order 18 is the specific provision for recalling a witness already examined. ( 7 ) AFTER considering the respective submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, it appears to me that under Rule 17 of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has ample power to allow re-examination of any witness at the instance of a party if the Court is satisfied that in the facts of the case such re-examination is necessary and justified. There is no manner of doubt that the Court will not help a party to fill up the lacuna in the evidence adduced in a proceeding by exercising the power under Rule 17 of Order 18 if there is no proper justification for the omission to examine the witness properly and/or the purpose for further examination of the witness is to introduce a new fact and/or to negative the case of the other party not met earlier without any valid reason. But if due to some bona fide omission or inadvertence either of the party or its counsel relevant questions in support of the case pleaded by the party are not put to the witness thereby causing prejudice to such party and the Court is satisfied that further examination of the witness is only fair and proper, the Court has always a power under Rule 17 of Order 18 to recall such witness for examination even at the instance of the party. In my view, it will not be proper to contend that Court has only suo moto power to examine any witness after examination of such witness by the parties but at the instance of the party such examination cannot be allowed by the Court if such examination means filling up of lacuna. In the instant case, it is the specific pleading of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has no other suitable alternative accommodation and she requires the suit premises for her reasonable requirement and precisely for the said purpose the husband of the plaintiff was examined as P. W. No. 1 Pleading is not evidence and the case made out in the pleading is required to be proved by evidence. It is, therefore, essential for a party to prove its case by leading proper evidence. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that through inadvertence two very important questions were omitted to be put to P. W. No. 1. It is, therefore, essential for a party to prove its case by leading proper evidence. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that through inadvertence two very important questions were omitted to be put to P. W. No. 1. In my view, by putting the proposed questions by re-examination of the P. W. No. 1, no surprise is going to be sprung on the defendant and Mr. Mukherjee is justified in his contention that in the facts of the case, such prayer of the plaintiff is quite reasonable and justified and it is not a case that without any proper justification, the plaintiff is trying to introduce further evidence only at a very belated stage to fill up the lacuna in the case made out by the plaintiff. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, no interference is called for in this revisional application and the same is, therefore, dismissed. It may, however, be noted that the learned Munsif should have indicated the reasons more specifically so that there may not be any occasion for the defendant to contend that the matter was disposed of by the learned Judge without proper application of mind. As the matter is pending since 1982, it is only desirable that the suit should be disposed of as for re-examination of P. W. No. 1 as early as possible after the receipt of the order of this Court preferably within two months from such communication and thereafter dispose of the suit by giving a day-to-day hearing. It is, however, made clear that if after re-examination of P. W. No. 1, a prayer is made before the learned Munsif for examination or further examination of any of the witnesses of the defendants to meet the case made out by the plaintiff by re-examination of P. W. No. 1 the learned Munsif will allow such prayer. Let the order be communicated to the Court below by a special messenger at the cost of the opposite party as prayed for.