JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 27.1.1990, passed by learned Civil Judge, Hindaun City, by which he allowed the application of the plaintiff non-petitioner dated 6.1.1990 for recalling the defendant Madan Mohan, whose statement was recorded on 27.9.1989, again for cross-examination. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff also submitted an application for temporary injunction. The application for temporary injunction submitted by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial court. But the said Court on another application vide its order dated 30.4.1982, passed an order for appointment of Receiver on the cinema building. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Gangapur City, vide his order dated 18.1.1983, set-aside the order of appointment of Receiver. He further observed that the disputed premises will be maintained and repaired by the petitioner and further that the petitioner will not demolish or destroy the disputed premises. 3. That, on 31.5.1986, an application was filed by the plaintiff non-petitioner stating that the petitioners have demolished the projection of the cinema building on 27.5.1986 and as such committed contempt of court. The petitioners submitted reply to the said application on 2.8.1986 and denied the allegations of the contempt application. On 23.4.1989, the plaintiff non-petitioner closed his evidence. The petitioners also closed their evidence on 27.9.89 and thereafter the case was fixed for arguments on 6.10.1989. On 6.10.1989, the non-petitioner filed an application stating that his statement was incomplete and prayed that he may be allowed to complete his Statement. The lower Court allowed his prayer and the non-petitioner completed his statement on 6.1.1990. On the same day the non-petitioner also submitted an application stating that he filed an application on 28.5.1986 in the main suit and the petitioners filed reply of the said application, a copy of which was given to the non-petitioner. It was prayed that he should be allowed to cross-examine the petitioner Madan Mohan on his reply. The petitioners submitted their reply to the said application on 12.1.90, in which it was mentioned that neither the plaintiff non-petitioner filed any application on 28.5:86, nor they submitted any reply on 31.5.1986, nor any reply is on the record of the Court. It was prayed that he should be allowed to cross-examine the petitioner Madan Mohan on his reply. The petitioners submitted their reply to the said application on 12.1.90, in which it was mentioned that neither the plaintiff non-petitioner filed any application on 28.5:86, nor they submitted any reply on 31.5.1986, nor any reply is on the record of the Court. It was further mentioned that the application has been filed to harass the petitioner on baseless grounds and is malafide. The learned Civil Judge, Hindaun City, vide his order dated 27.1.1990, took on record the reply dated 31.5.1986 alleged to have been filed by the petitioners before the said Court and allowed the non-petitioner to cross-examine the petitioner Madan Mohan. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the defendant-petitioners have come in revision. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It has been argued by Mr. Mehta, counsel for the petitioners that the witness was already cross-examined by the non-petitioner and as such to allow the non-petitioner to again cross-examine the witness is an abuse of the process of the Court. He argued that no power is given in the Code of Civil Procedure, by which a witness, who had already been cross-examined, can be again cross examined by opposite party. He submits that Order 18 R. 17, empowers a Court to recall any witness who has been already examined and put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. It does not authorise a party to cross-examine the witness who has been already cross-examined. He submits that no party can be permitted to remove lacunas of his case by submitting such applications. He also argued that the petitioners did not file any reply as alleged by the non-petitioner before the Court and no such reply is on the file of the Court. He further argued that no such prayer was made by the non-petitioner in his application that the so called reply be taken on record, still the Court has permitted the non-petitioner to submit the so called reply. He argued that the Court has granted to the non-petitioner a relief which was not even prayed by permitted the non-petitioner to submit the so called reply. He argued that the Court has granted to the non-petitioner a relief which was not even prayed by him in his application. He argued that the Court has granted to the non-petitioner a relief which was not even prayed by permitted the non-petitioner to submit the so called reply. He argued that the Court has granted to the non-petitioner a relief which was not even prayed by him in his application. The order of the lower Court is without jurisdiction. He further argued that the case was fixed for arguments but instead of arguing the case, the non-petitioner submitted an application on 6.1.1990, mala fide. He argued that in case the order is allowed to stand, it would oc-asion failure of justice and would cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. In support of his arguments, Mr. Mehta, placed reliance on a judgement of this Court in Ram Sahai v. Kuberdan, RLW 1956, 306 . 7. On the other hand, Mr. Lodha, counsel for the plaintiff non-petitioner argued that as the impugned order does not fall within the definition 'case decided' and as such the revision is not maintainable. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on Palia Bewa v. Parbati Kumari Mohapatra and others, AIR 1986 Ori, 62 . 8. On merits, Mr. Lodha argued that such an order can be passed by the lower court under the Provisions of Order 15 Rule 17 and 17A of Civil Procedure Code. In support of his argument, Mr. Lodha placed reliance on Om Prakash v. Sarupa and others, AIR 1981 P.&H. 157 Smt. Kulsumun Nisa v. Smt. Ahmadi Begum and others, AIR 1972 All., 219 M/s. Pabudan Hiralal v. Shri Mahesh Industries and ors., AIR 1970 Raj. 59 Alokh Pradhan and ors. v. Bharmar Pal and anr AIR 1978 Orrisa 58 and Shankara Bhat v. Sheema Bhat and another, AIR 1974 Kar. 123 In Palia Bewa's case (supra), the facts were that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendant Nos. 1 to 11. After the plaintiff had given evidence, an application was filed by four persons for impleading them as defendants. That application was allowed by the trial court. Later on the impleaded defendants filed an application for recalling the plaintiff for cross-, examination on the ground that they had no opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff as they were added as defendants subsequent to the closure of the evidence of plaintiff. This application was allowed by the trial court. That application was allowed by the trial court. Later on the impleaded defendants filed an application for recalling the plaintiff for cross-, examination on the ground that they had no opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff as they were added as defendants subsequent to the closure of the evidence of plaintiff. This application was allowed by the trial court. The plaintiff challenged the said order in revision and the revision was dismissed by the Orissa High Court. The High Court further held that the order of the trial court was not a case decided and as such the revision was not maintainable. This view was based on the judgment of their lordships of Hon.Supreme Court in the case of Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors, AIR 1970 SC 406 in which it was held as Under:- "A case may be said to be decided if the Court adjudicates for the purpose of the suit some right or obligation of the parties in controversy every orders in the suit can not be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 C.P.C." 9. The Code of Civil Procedure was amended in the year 1976, and explanation was added to Section 115, which reads as under:-Explanation:- In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding. 10. This question was considered by this Court in Ghewar Chand v. Gaj Singh, RLW 1982, 229 in which it was held as under : "It is true that the expression "any order made" includes within its embrace all sorts of orders. Such a wide connotation, of course, can not be given to the expression "any order". An order, which may ultimately affect the decision of the suit or which may ultimately affect the right of the party, though it is not adjudicating the right, may in my opinion, be covered under the expression "any order". 11. The order of the lower court, in my view, ultimately affect the right of the petitioners though it is not adjudicating the right, still is covered under the expression "any order" and as such the revision is maintainable. 12. On the merits, I have gone through the rulings cited by Mr. Lodha and they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. On the merits, I have gone through the rulings cited by Mr. Lodha and they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The case reported in AIR 1981 P. (Cr H. 157 (supra), was not a case under Rule 17 of Order 18 C.P.C. but was a case under Rule 17-A. 13. In M/s. Pabudan Hiralal (supra) it has been held that recalling of a plaintiff's witness as a witness of defendant with leave of Courts is not prohibited if cogent reasons are given. This ruling is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. In Shankara Bhat's case (supra), it has been held that only the Court can put questions to him. A party has no right of cross examination without leave of the Court. 15. In Altaf Hussain v. Nasreen Sahra, AIR 1978 All. 515 it has been held that if the provisions of Order 18 R. 17 are read alongwirh the provisions of S. 165 of the Evidence Ad, it is clear that the power to recall and re-examine a witness is exclusively that of the Court trying the suit. The parties to the suit can not take any objection to the question asked nor can they be permitted to cross-examine any witness without the leave of the Court. In Ram Sahai's case (supra) it has been held by this Court as under : "Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to cite any provision of law other than those of 0. 18 R. 17. That provision certainly authorises a Court to recall a witness but for purposes of putting any questions which the Court itself might think necessary. It does not authorise a party to have a witness, whom he has already cross-examined, recalled for purpose of further cross-examination. 16. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the view laid dawn by this Court in Ram Sahai's case (supra) is a correct law. A party can not be permitted to cross-examine a witness of opposite party with a view to remove lacunas in the case. The lower court did not consider this authority in its order and allowed application of the non-petitioner in arbitrary way. A party can not be permitted to cross-examine a witness of opposite party with a view to remove lacunas in the case. The lower court did not consider this authority in its order and allowed application of the non-petitioner in arbitrary way. The lower court further erred in taking the so called reply of the petitioners on record, when no such application was moved by the non-petitioner. The order passed by the trial court is arbitrary one. The lower court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law and in case the order of the trial court is allowed to stand, it would occasion failure of justice. 17. Consequently, I allow the revision, set aside the order dated 27.1.90 passed by learned Civil Judge, Hindaun City, and dismiss the application of the non-petitioner dated 6.1.90 for recalling Madan Mohan petitioner for cross-examination.Both the parties shall bear their own costs.Revision Allowed. *******