H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure, for short, 'code' from the order dated 23-9-1995, passed by XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, rejecting the revisionist-lst defendant's application under Order 18, Rule 17, for recalling P. W. 3, who had already been examined and cross-examined. The Court below considered the matter and opined that application was devoid of merits and rejected it. This order had been passed disposing of the application filed under Order 18, rule 17, in O. S. No. 4847 of 1980. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist Sri P. D. Surana, holding brief for Sri D. R. Chandrappa, Counsel for the 1st defendant. Under Section 115 of the Code, the first ingredient, to be shown and made out by the party seeking to challenge the orders under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure, for short, 'code', is that the order impugned amounts to be a case decided. It is upon the learned Counsel for 1st defendant-revisionist to satisfy me about it and the learned counsel for the 1st defendant failed to satisfy. The test to determine whether an order amounts to be a case decided is if the order impugned amounts to a decision on some right, may be substantive right relating to the title in the suit, or some right relating to proceedings in the suit.- ( 3 ) ORDER 18, Rule 17 of the Code confers a discretionary power on the Court to recall a witness if it thinks proper. It does not by itself Confer a right on a party. No doubt, party may move, but, it is never a right of a party to recall a witness already examined, really, it is the discretion of the Court to permit or not to permit. No doubt, discretion is to be exercised judiciously. When no right of the party itself is decided by this impugned order and particularly, when examination and cross-examination have already been held, the question of recalling is purely a matter of discretionary power of the Court, no doubt, to be exercised judiciously, an order refusing to recall a witness cannot be termed as a case decided. It is a pure and simple locutary order and not a case decided under Section 115 of the Code. It is a pure and simple locutary order and not a case decided under Section 115 of the Code. ( 4 ) FURTHER, the learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that really, it is an application under Order 18, Rule 17-A, of the code. There is a distinction between Order 18, Rule 17 and order 18, Rule 17-A. As Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code reads as under:"rule 17. Court may recall and examine witness: 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". A reading of this rule will per se show that the rule entitles the court to recall a witness at any stage of the suit, namely, the witness, who has already been examined and to put such questions as it deems fit from him. Therefore, if a person applies under Order 18, Rule 17, he can suggest a question to the Court as to what nas to be put to the witness and if Courts think it is necessary to recall for those questions being put, then only, the court can recall him and put those questions, otherwise, not. "order 18, Rule 17-A provides Production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence: where a party satisfies the Court that after the exercise of due diligence, any evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him, at the time when the party was leading his evidence, the Court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just". ( 5 ) A reading of this just above noted rule per se reveals that a party can apply to the Court for being permitted to produce or lead any evidence provided it establishes to the satisfaction of the Court, the following conditions: (a) that in spite of exercise of due diligence, the evidence in question was not within the knowledge of the party; or (b) that after exercise of due diligence, the evidence in question could not be produced by him at the time when party was leading his evidence. ( 6 ) IN the present case, nothing has been indicated from the affidavit filed by the revisionist-1st defendant before the Trial court, under Order 18, Rules 17 or 17-A, which may indicate that due diligence was exercised to acquire knowledge of that evidence or to produce that evidence and in spite of exercise of due diligence, the party could not produce that evidence. Here really, the application has been made to recall a witness, who has already been examined by the plaintiff as P. W. 3, who has also been cross-examined by the 1st defendant-revisionist, so, it cannot be said that P. W. 3, was not within his knowledge and so, he should be allowed to produce him as his witness. So, the application cannot be said to have been made under Order 18, rule 17-A, instead, this was a pure and simple application under order 18, Rule 17 of the Code. ( 7 ) AS I have mentioned, Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code, confers no right to a party to recall a witness, but, there is only the power of the Court, if Court thinks fit to put certain questions, can recall. As no such question has been mentioned by the revisionist which the revisionist wanted to put to the witness-P. W. 3. Thus considered in my opinion, the application has rightly been dismissed, as the Court below did not commit any jurisdictional error or error of law touching jurisdiction of the Court. Thus considered, I am of the view, that this revision petition is without merits and is liable to be dismissed and is herewith dismissed. --- *** --- .