JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the order of learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Udaipur dated 2.8.97 by which he rejected the two applications of the petitioner. 2. Civil Suit No. 113/93 is pending before learned Civil Judge for rent and eviction of the shop under the Rent-Control Act. The defendant petitioner had moved an application for amendment before the learned trial judge which was dismissed on 28.4.97. Thereafter the defendant moved two applications first being under Order XVIII Rules 2 and 17 read withs Section 151 CPC and other under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 read with Section 151 CPC. In the first application the defendant requested that Ugar Singh may be allowed to be further cross examined as the defendant was not knowing at the time of his earlier cross examination that Ugar Singh's wife Smt. Indira Sankhla was carrying business under the name and style of Unique Marbles ever since before 1989. This fact came to the knowledge of the defendant after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. It was further stated in the application that Smt. Indira Sankhla was a house wife and actually it was the plaintiff Ugar Singh who was carrying the business in her name. The suit has been filed on the personal and bonafide necessity and in case the defendant is able to prove that Ugar Singh was carrying on the business in the name of his wife, the bonafide need can be shattered. This application was disallowed by the learned trial court. In the second application under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 CPC it was requested that Smt. Indira Sankhla may be allowed to be summoned as a witness on behalf of the defendant and that some record from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Taxation, be also summoned so that the defendant may prove that the business under the name and style of M/s Unique Marbles was being carried in the name of Smt. Indira Sankhla and that the plaintiff himself was carrying on that business. Both these applications have been rejected by the trial Judge. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the record. 4. Both these applications have been rejected by the trial Judge. Hence this revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the record. 4. So far as first application to recall Ugar Singh for further cross examination is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it was not necessary to recall him in the facts and circumstances of this case because when Ugar Singh was cross examined as PW-2 on 20.7.94 he was asked questions about Unique Marbles and he clearly stated that he was not sitting at the Unique Marbles. He has also submitted that it is for the court to call a witness for further cross examination under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC if the court may, at any stage of the suit, deems proper and recall and put such questions to him as the court thinks fit. According to him the party cannot request to recall a witness. But in this case in hand the circumstances are very peculiar. Defendant had made an application for amendment in the pleadings to the effect that there was a business named as Unique Marbles in the name of Smt. Indira Sankhla where Ugar Singh was himself carrying on the business and Smt. Indira Sankhla was a house wife. His amendment application was rejected by the learned trial Judge saying that when there was already issue No. 1 on record regarding reasonable and bonafide necessity there was no need to make an amendment as the defendant can very well refute the bonafide necessity by leading evidence as the pleadings are required to contain facts and not evidence. The defendant had moved an application under the relevant provision of law as well as under Section 151 CPC and in my view this application should have been allowed and the court could itself put the questions under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. It was a fit case in which the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the defendant. I am of the clear view that the trial court committed an error by refusing to recall Ugar Singh. Therefore, the order disallowing this application is hereby set-aside. 5. Learned counsel Shri Chopra has relied on AIR 1974, Karnataka page 123, Shankara Bhat v. Bheema Bhat and another and has submitted that the witness cannot be recalled for cross examination. I am of the clear view that the trial court committed an error by refusing to recall Ugar Singh. Therefore, the order disallowing this application is hereby set-aside. 5. Learned counsel Shri Chopra has relied on AIR 1974, Karnataka page 123, Shankara Bhat v. Bheema Bhat and another and has submitted that the witness cannot be recalled for cross examination. Even in this citation it has been held that the right of court to act under the rule is not restricted to action of its own motion. It can recall a witness at the instance of the party, it is something different that either the court puts the questions to the witness. It has been observed that ordinarily no cross examination is allowed without leave of court. In para 9 of this citation it is observed that right to put questions to the witness recalled under Rule 17 is given only to the court and even cross examination is not ordinarily permitted on the answers given to such questions without the leave of the court. Since the order is being passed to recall Ugar Singh, it is open to the learned trial court to put such questions to him as he considers proper and necessary to elicit the fact which was not elicited at the time of previous cross examination. Counsel for defendant may suggest questions at the relevant time. Shri Chopra also cited 1991(1) Western Law Cases (Raj.) page 406, Madan Mohan and others v. Daya Nand wherein it was observed that the order for recalling witness for further cross examination affects right of other party. But in the circumstances of the present case when -the defendant came to know about the business under the name and style of Unique Marbles after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed, I think it is just and proper that Ugar Singh should be cross examined on this point as per provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC. 6. So far as the other application is concerned, the record of the lower court which is available in this Court shows that the documents which were called for from the Sales Tax Department have already come. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press that part of the prayer of the application. 6. So far as the other application is concerned, the record of the lower court which is available in this Court shows that the documents which were called for from the Sales Tax Department have already come. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press that part of the prayer of the application. So far as calling Smt. Indira Sankhla as a witness of defendant is concerned, his contention is that the trial court has not considered the request of calling Smt. Indira Sankhla as a defendant's witness at all and thought that the application was limited only to the extent calling record from the Commercial Taxes Department. To this, the learned counsel for the respondents Shri Chopra submitted that if there are many prayers in an application one of them may not be pressed and, therefore, the court was not obliged to mention about the prayer. So it should be presumed that it was not pressed. According to him it is in order to harass and put her in awkward situation to call as a witness on behalf of defence. I do not agree with these submissions of Shri Chopra because a party has right to call a witness on his behalf if the witness is material to give relevant evidence. It hardly matters if Smt. Indira Sankhla is the wife of the plaintiff. The clear case of the defendant is that there is a business named as Unique Marbles which is in the name of Smt. Indira Sankhla but his case is that it is the plaintiff himself who is carrying on this business as Smt. Indira Sankhla is a house wife. The argument that defendant had not pressed the prayer is also not acceptable because had it been so the trial court would have definitely mentioned in the order. It appears that since the suit was quite old and different applications were being submitted by the defendant, the trial court might have thought that the defendant was delaying the proceedings this way. Trial courts are supposed to consider all the prayer of the parties and adjudicate upon them. From the impugned order it appears that this prayer was not considered and as such the order requires to be set-aside. 7. Trial courts are supposed to consider all the prayer of the parties and adjudicate upon them. From the impugned order it appears that this prayer was not considered and as such the order requires to be set-aside. 7. Consequently, the revision is allowed to the extent that the trial court will recall Ugar Singh for cross examination as per provisions under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC as directed in above paras. It will also issue process to summon Smt. Indira Sankhla to be produced as a witness on behalf of the defendant. To that extent the order of trial court is set-aside.Revision Allowed. *******