Judgment :- 1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 1061 of 19% on the file of XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai, is the revision petitioner. Suit filed by the plaintiff was for recovery of money for a sum of Rs. 84,000/-with future interest and costs. 2. According to the plaintiff he has supplied building materials to the defendant who is a building contractor. The plaintiff has supplied the same, the value of which is given in the plaint schedule, various demands were made, the defendant has also executed two promissory notes on 15.12.1993 each for sum of Rs. 30,000/- agreeing to pay 24% p.a. interest. Finally, the defendant also issued a cheque for Rs. 70,000/- and the same was also dishonoured. The suit is therefore laid for recovery of the amount. 3. The defendant has filed a detailed written statement and has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. I do not want to go into the merits of the case since the subject matter of the revision lies within a narrow compass. 5. During trial P.W.I was examined and his evidence was also closed. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A. No. 11941 of 1999 to recall P.W.1. It is alleged in that petition that though on 7.7.1999 P.W.I was examined since he was not present, the Counsel could not cross examine P.W.1 properly. He wanted P.W.I to be recalled for further cross examination. The same was seriously opposed by the petitioner by filing a counter. 6. By the impugned order, the lower Court allowed it. 7. Challenging the correctness and legality of the above order, the plaintiff has filed this revision. 8. Heard Counsel for the petitioner. 9. In the various grounds raised in the revision memo, it is contended that application under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be invoked only by Court and not by a party to the suit. Therefore, the impugned order was one without jurisdiction. I do not find any merit in the said submission. It is now settled law that even at the instance of the party, a witness could be recalled for examination. 10. Therefore, the impugned order was one without jurisdiction. I do not find any merit in the said submission. It is now settled law that even at the instance of the party, a witness could be recalled for examination. 10. In 1994 I M.L.J. 514 (Andichi Ammal v. Periya Muniyandi Moopar ), the very same question came up for consideration, and the divergent view taken by the Karnataka High Court and Calcutta High Court was also brought to the notice of the learned Judge and in paragraph 4 of the order, it was held thus: “4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Mr. S. Natarajan. To consider his submission No. (i). O. 18, R. 17 needs extraction. It reads as follows: “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.” It is apparent that recalling of a witness at any stage is the inherent power of the Court. In Shymapada Neogy v. A.A. Blswas , 71 C.W.N. 747, the Calcutta High Court had occasion to consider O. 18, R. 17, C.P.C. In it the learned judge had held as follows: “No doubt, the Court can invoke its power under O. 18, R. 17, even at the instance of a party. But that it can do, in its discretion, when an unforeseen situation has developed or even when an inadvertent omission is there, provided that it causes no surprise or prejudice to the other party.” In Shankara Bhat v. Bheema Bhat , AIR 1974 Karn. 123, the learned single Judge has given his view as follows: “However, the said rule, in my opinion, makes it abundantly clear that the right to put question 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. Under that rule therefore, witness cannot be recalled at the instance of a party for the purpose of examining, cross-examining, or re-examining, and that rule is not intended to serve such purpose, and that purpose for which that rule can as invoked is the one that is indicated above.” With respect, I do not agree with the view of the learned Judge, with respect, I am in full agreement with the view expressed in Shyamapada Neogy v. AA. Biswaas , 71 C.W.N. 747. Hence, I do not accept the submission made by Mr. Natarajan that the provisions of O. 18, R. 17, C.P.C., can be invoked only by the Court and not by the party.” 11. When the Court directs to recall a witness for further examination, the rights of parties are not adjudicated. In any way, it is not ‘a case decided’ under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence the revision is also not maintainable. 12. In AIR 1978 Orissa 58 (Alekh Pradhan v. Bhramar Pal), his Lordship held thus: “In the decision reported in AIR 1970 SC 406 ( Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmstan Distributors ) it has been held that every order of the Court in course of a suit does not amount to ‘a case decided’. In this connection it has been said that (at p. 410):— “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 order in the suit cannot be regarded as a case decided within the meaning of S. 115, C.P.C.” By the impugned order, no right or obligation of the parties in controversy in the suit has been decided. That being so, the above mentioned contention of Mr. Pal appears to be well founded.” The same principle was reiterated by the same Court in AIR 1986 Orissa 62 ( Palia Bewa v. Parbati Kumari ). 13. By recalling a witness for further cross-examination, what is the prejudice caused to the petitioner is not explained. In the affidavit it is stated that because of the absence of the party, the Advocate could not cross examine the witness properly. Some more answers will have to be elicited from witness. The lower Court is also satisfied about the reason and ordered the recalling of witness to elicit truth. In the affidavit it is stated that because of the absence of the party, the Advocate could not cross examine the witness properly. Some more answers will have to be elicited from witness. The lower Court is also satisfied about the reason and ordered the recalling of witness to elicit truth. It the Court directs recalling of witness, the petitioner can never be said as aggrieved person nor his rights are affected in any way. It is also not ‘a case decided’ under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Either way the C.R.P. is without merit and consequently the same is dismissed. No costs, Connected C.M.P. Nq. 12945 of 1999 is closed.