Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The question posed in this civil revision petition is this : Can the plaintiff be recalled for cross-examination, on the application field by the defendant under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts are these : The respondent herein, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 122 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar for the recovery of the amount against the defendant/petitioner. After examination of the witnesses on the side of the plaintiff/respondent the defendant/petitioner was examined as D.W. 1. During the course of cross-examination the counsel for the plaintiff marked Exs. A2 to A4 through D.W. 1. D.W. I admitted that he was the author of those documents. 3. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in I.A. No. 350 of 1997 before the trial Court under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting the Court to recall P.W. 1 the plaintiff/respondent, to enable him to cross-examine P.W. 1 with reference to those documents which were marked through the defendant/petitioner. 4. This was resisted by the plaintiff, the respondent herein contending that the petitioner having admitted that Exs. A2 and 3 were the letters written by him addressed to P.W. 1 could very well explain those documents in re-examination, and that the plaintiff need not be recalled for cross-examination, and that it would merely help the defendant only to drag on the proceedings. 5. It was also further contended that the provision of law under Order 18, Rule 17 quoted in the petition has no application to the facts stated therein and that it applies only to the Court to exercise its jurisdiction to put any question to the witness and that the said provision cannot be invoked by the parties in the suit, to recall the witnesses already cross-examined for further cross-examination. 6. After having considered the submissions made by both the parties, the trial Court passed the impugned order dismissing the application filed for recalling the plaintiff mainly on the ground that there was no valid reason to recall the plaintiff who had already been cross examined. Hence this revision. 7. Mr. 6. After having considered the submissions made by both the parties, the trial Court passed the impugned order dismissing the application filed for recalling the plaintiff mainly on the ground that there was no valid reason to recall the plaintiff who had already been cross examined. Hence this revision. 7. Mr. Sivaji, counsel for the petitioner would press into service the following submissions : (i) The application under Order 18, Rule 17 is perfectly valid in law as it provides the cross-examination of the witnesses by recalling at the instance of the parties to the suit. Even otherwise Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers powers to the Court to make such an order to meet the ends of justice, to recall the witnesses for cross-examination. (ii) The documents in favour of the plaintiff Exs. A2 to A4, admittedly, were marked only during the cross-examination through D.W.1. There is no reference about these documents in the plaint. The plaintiff also did not speak about these documents, while he was in the box, either during chief examination or during cross-examination. For the first time the question has been put to D.W.1 with reference to those documents and the same had been marked. In the situation, it is just, and necessary that P.W.1 has to be recalled for putting questions on behalf of the defendant with reference to those documents. Therefore, the lower Court is not correct in saying that there was no valid reasons to accept the request of the defendant, the petitioner herein, to recall the witness. 8. These submissions were refuted by the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff by filing counter. Mr. Sivaraman, representing Mr. N. Damodaran, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would reiterate in support of the impugned order that this could be clarified even in the re-examination, and that there was no necessity to recall the witness. He would also further submit that the provision of law quoted in the application before the trial Court would apply to the Court alone, to put questions and not for cross-examination at the instance of the defendant. 9. Before adverting to the maintainability of the petition, with reference to the question posed in this case, as referred earlier, let me at the outset consider the question as to whether there is any necessity for recalling P.W.1 the plaintiff for cross-examination regarding Exs. A2 to A4. 10. 9. Before adverting to the maintainability of the petition, with reference to the question posed in this case, as referred earlier, let me at the outset consider the question as to whether there is any necessity for recalling P.W.1 the plaintiff for cross-examination regarding Exs. A2 to A4. 10. As correctly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, these exhibits were suddently brought to be marked in the Court only during the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, even without making any reference about the same either in the deposition of the plaintiff or in the plaint. Further more, D.W.1 in the box admitted that he was the author of those documents which were sent by him to the plaintiff. This would show that these documents were very much available with the plaintiff even before filing the suit. Despite this, the details of these documents were not mentioned in the plaint. In addition to this, the plaintiff did not think it fit to refer these documents in his chief examination. Now, it is sought to be proved through these documents that the defendant admitted his liability with reference to the suit amount. 11. The case of the defendant is that he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant now wants to prove, by putting questions in the cross-examination to P.W.1 that the liability, as admitted in Exs. A2 to A4 would not relate to the suit transaction. In such a situation, it is just and necessary to give an opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine P.W.1, who admittedly received these documents, more particularly when these documents were not filed through the plaintiff when he was put in the box. 12. Added to this, the trial Court thus observed : [Vernacular matter omitted] 13. This would show that the learned District Munsif was under the impression that these documents have already been marked through P.W.1 which is not factually correct. Even according to the plaintiff, there is no cross-examination of the plaintiff by the defendant with reference to those documents as these documents only were marked belatedly through D.W.1. 14. In view of the fact situation, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that there was a valid reason to recall the witness for cross-examination by the defendant with reference to these documents. 15. 14. In view of the fact situation, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that there was a valid reason to recall the witness for cross-examination by the defendant with reference to these documents. 15. The main question that has been posed is whether the trial Court has got powers to invoke Order 18, Rule 17 to recall the witness at the instance of the defendant for cross-examination. 16. The counsel for both the parties cited the following decisions to enable the Court to answer the question posed before this Court :- (1) Steelage Industries Limited v. Chander Bagai,. (2) Altaf Hussain v. Nasreen Zahra, 1978 AIR(All) 515. (3) Palia Bewa v. Parbati Kumari, 1986 AIR(Orissa) 62. (4) Ulamal Ameen Sahib v. Abdulla Sahib, 1989-1 LW 504. (5) Madhubhai Amthalal v. Amthalal Nanalal, 1947 AIR(Bom) 156. (6) Shankara Bhat v. Bheema Bhat, 1974 AIR(Karnataka) 123. (7) Suresh Kumar v. Baldev Raj, 1984 AIR(Delhi) 438. (8) Kulsumunnisa v. Ahmadi Begum, 1972 AIR(All) 219. 17. The reading of these judgments would make it clear that the trial Court is well within its powers to invoke Order 18, Rule 17 to recall the witness for re-cross-examination but under special and extraordinary circumstances. 18. It is held in 1989(1) LW 504 (supra), that the witness could be re-called and re-cross-examined at the instance of the parties under Section 151, C.P.C. However, on going through the other decisions it is manifestly clear that there is no bar for the trial Court to re-call the witness already cross-examined for the purpose of further cross-examination on the new factors that have been brought to light subsequent to the cross-examination of the witnesses. 19. Some of the decisions would say that under Order 18, Rule 17, the witnesses could be re-called by the Court on its own motion and put questions with reference to the clarification of any ambiguity that arises in a case. It is also held in those decisions that after putting those questions it could very well permit the parties to make further cross-examination. 20. Therefore, this could make it clear that the powers under Order 18, Rule 17 for recalling the wintess for re-cross-examination at the instance of the parties are very much in existence. 21. It is also held in those decisions that after putting those questions it could very well permit the parties to make further cross-examination. 20. Therefore, this could make it clear that the powers under Order 18, Rule 17 for recalling the wintess for re-cross-examination at the instance of the parties are very much in existence. 21. It is also brought to my notice through some decisions that when there are specific powers conferred under Order 18, Rule 17 for re-calling the wintess, the invoking Section 151, C.P.C. is not permissible under law. 22. However, in the light of the facts of this case, I am not inclined to go into the question, whether Section 151, C.P.C. could be invoked for re-calling the witness. But, in my view, on the basis of the interpretation of the Order 18, Rule 17 as given by the various authorities referred to above, the powers for recalling the witnesses for cross-examination at the instance of the defendant can be exercised by the trial Court, since there are valid reasons as dicussed above to re-call. 23. In the commentary by 'Sarkar on Evidence' while dealing with Sections 137 and 138 of Indian Evidence Act, it is observed as follows :- "Recall for Re-Cross Examination.- A re-call for re-cross-examination will ordinarily be unnecessary, except in the rare cases where the direct examination of an intervening witness has brought out new facts upon which the prior witness may throw light, and for this the matter can always be left in the hands of the trial Court (Wigs 1899). This is second cross-examination, a matter which rests entirely with the discretion of the Court." 24. The careful reading of the decisions and commentary referred above makes it obvious that the trial Court has got powers to re-call the plaintiff for re-cross-examination under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the application filed by the defendant independent of Section 151, C.P.C. So, to say that the powers of the Court to act under Order 18, Rule 17 are very wide. It is also clear that this power is purely discretionary. However, but the same ought to be exercised with the greatest care and only in the most peculiar cirucmstances. The right of the Court to act under this rule is not restricted to action of its own motion. 25. It is also clear that this power is purely discretionary. However, but the same ought to be exercised with the greatest care and only in the most peculiar cirucmstances. The right of the Court to act under this rule is not restricted to action of its own motion. 25. I do not see any fetter on the rights of the either party or the powers of the Court in coming to the conclusion that a party can ask the Court to exercise the power. At the risk of repetition, I may mention that this power under Order 18, Rule 17, is clearly, discretionary, as appears from the use of the word "may", not once but twice, as I think that power exists and the same ought to be exercised with the care and caution. 26. Admittedly, in this case, as earlier indicated, there is no reference about Exs. A2 to A4 in the plaint. There is also no evidence with reference to these documents in the form of the deposition either in the chief or in the cross-examination by the plaintiff. These documents on behalf of the plaintiff have been marked only during the cross-examination of the defendant by the plaintiff's counsel. 27. The defendant, of course, admits that he is the author of those documents and that they are the letters which have been written by the defendant to the plaintiff. Now, the endeavour by the defendant is to put questions with reference to those documents to the plaintiff under what circumstances these letters have been written by the defendant to the plaintiff. 28. The re-calling of the plaintiff for re-cross-examination would not, in any way, prejudice the interest of the plaintiff because the plaintiff also would be in a position to refer about the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff through D.W.1 which would make the evidence substantive. 29. Therefore, in the light of the facts of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to re-call the plaintiff for re-cross-examination for putting questions with reference to the documents Exs. A2 to A4, suffers with the infirmity and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. 30. In the result, the revision is allowed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, no separate order is necessary in C.M.P.No. 10118 of 1997. A2 to A4, suffers with the infirmity and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. 30. In the result, the revision is allowed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, no separate order is necessary in C.M.P.No. 10118 of 1997. Order accordingly.