Judgment :- 1. PW2 refused to sign his deposition on the ground that one answer was not correctly recorded. The Munsiff who recorded the deposition was also satisfied that there is the particular mistake in recording. But the Munsiff did not correct the mistake on the ground that the Advocate for the defendant did not agree. The case which was pending before the Additional Munsiff was thereafter transferred by the District Judge to the file of the Principal Munsiff on the application of the plaintiff. Subsequent to that the plaintiff moved under 0.18 R.17 to recall and examine PW2. The application was allowed for the limited purpose of examining the witness again with reference to the particular answer alone. That is the order challenged by the defendant in revision. 2. Court has a duty to read over the depositions to witnesses and ascertain from them whether it has been truly and correctly recorded If there is any mistake in recording, and the presiding officer is satisfied that there is such a mistake, it is his duty to correct the same. Deposition must be a true record of what the witness deposed. There can be instances where witnesses may dispute the correctness even when the deposition is truly and correctly recorded. In such cases the court need not and cannot correct the deposition. When the presiding officer is satisfied that there is a mistake in recording and be has no doubt as to what exactly that mistake is, he can correct the same without the consent and even against the opposition of the opposite party or the Advocate. He can even ignore the opposition of the witness or the party who cited him or his Advocate. The witness who gave evidence alone is having a voice in the matter and that too is only subject to the decision of the presiding officer. Court has a duty to see that its records are truly and correctly recorded and maintained and nobody is prejudiced by any mistake committed by the Court. When the Court feels any doubt whether the recording was correct or not then alone the question of ascertaining the views of any party or Advocate present in Court will arise. Court has a duty to see that its records are truly and correctly recorded and maintained and nobody is prejudiced by any mistake committed by the Court. When the Court feels any doubt whether the recording was correct or not then alone the question of ascertaining the views of any party or Advocate present in Court will arise. That is only for the purpose of assisting the Court in coming to the correct conclusion whether there is a mistake or not and if there is a mistake what exactly it is when the Court is convinced of the mistake and is sure what exactly the witness deposed there is no question of consulting any body or considering their objections. The question of considering the views of others including the witness who deposed will arise only when the court feels doubt regarding what is recorded. Even though the witness who gave evidence is having the right to dispute the correctness of what is recorded as his deposition, his objection must also yield to the decision of the court. Anyhow the court is not justified in refusing to correct the deposition on the basis of objection by others even after being satisfied of the mistake. 3. When the deposition is found to be truly and correctly recorded the presiding officer has the right to direct the witness to sign the deposition. R.146 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice authorises the same. Civil Rules of Practice is having the force of law, having been made under the authority conferred by S.122 of the Civil Procedure Code. Any refusal to sign the deposition as required by the Court is an offence punishable under S.180 of the Indian Penal Code and a complaint could be filed by the Court before the competent Magistrate. Those questions have not arisen in this case. 4. We are now only at the question whether the impugned order requires interference or not. The Munsiff who recorded the deposition has not exercised the jurisdiction to correct the mistake or get the deposition signed. The case itself was transferred to another court with the deposition unsigned by the witness. The transferee Munsiff exercised jurisdiction on the application of the plaintiff for recalling the witness only for the purpose of examining him with reference to the disputed answer alone. 5. The case itself was transferred to another court with the deposition unsigned by the witness. The transferee Munsiff exercised jurisdiction on the application of the plaintiff for recalling the witness only for the purpose of examining him with reference to the disputed answer alone. 5. The powers of the Court to act under 0.18 R.17 are very wide. But the power is discretionary and ought to be exercised with the greatest care and only in exceptional circumstances, very sparingly. (See Madrubhai Amthala v. Amthalal Nanalal and others (AIR 1947 Bombay 156) and Harinarain v. Ram Asish (AIR 1957 Patna 124). The rule provides for the recalling of witnesses after their examination has once been finished. The intention of the rule is to afford an opportunity to put such questions to a witness as had not been put to him in the earlier examination due to the inadvertence of a party. Courts cannot recall a witness at the instance of a party under this rule to fill up lacuna in the evidence already let in. But in a situation as the one that has arisen in the case it has become absolutely necessary to know what exactly the witness said on the particular answer. The course adopted by the Munsiff is evidently proper and legal. It cannot be said that while recalling the witness the court acted without jurisdiction. Normally it is only the court that can put questions to the witness recalled under this rule and no cross examination is ordinarily allowed upon answer to a question put by the court without its leave. The order is in conformity with these provisions and no question of acting illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction is involved. 6. The argument based on the decision in M. M. Amonkar v. S.A. Johari (1984 (2) SCC 354) that the affidavit in support of the application under 0.18 R.17 is vague does not appear sound. Vagueness is in the same sense that the plaintiff who filed the affidavit did not say what exactly the mistake in recording of the deposition is. Plaintiff cannot be expected to know and specify the exact mistake which is more within the knowledge of the witness. Further it is not proper for the plaintiff to specify the mistake because such a version is likely to affect the evidence of the witness when recalled and questioned. Plaintiff cannot be expected to know and specify the exact mistake which is more within the knowledge of the witness. Further it is not proper for the plaintiff to specify the mistake because such a version is likely to affect the evidence of the witness when recalled and questioned. The Civil Revision Petition has no merit and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.