Judgment : V. ESWARAIAH, J. (1) The petitioners herein are defendants 3 to 6 in O. S. No. 1507/1996 filed by the 1st respondent herein on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of the title in respect of suit property situated at Devdi Mama Jumla, hyderabad in an extent of 213 Sq. yds alleging that an area of 122. 6 Sq. yds belonging to one Syed Mohd Hussain sold the said property to Smt. Basanti Bat through a registered sale deed dated 6-7-1960 for a sum of Rs. 96/-and also sold another extent of 91 Sq. yds to Sri Mannalal on 18-3-1960 for Rs. 96/ -. (2) It appears that several disputes are pending among the parties leading to filing of the Rent Control Cases. The petitioners herein filed an application under order 18 Rule 17 read with 151 Code of civil Procedure to recall PW-1 (Dull Chand) for cross-examination on behalf of defendants 3 to 6 on the grounds that they could not cross-examine PW-1 as their Counsel was out of station due to which they could not cross-examine PW-1 and non cross- examination of PW-1 is beyond their control and they may be permitted to recall PW-1. The said application has been dismissed on the ground that their right of cross- examination was already forfeited and the petitioners herein came forward with a petition with abnormal delay without any valid ground with a view to procrastinate the litigation and there are no grounds to allow the said application. (3) It is to be seen that PW-1 was examined in chief on 16-10-2001. At the request of these petitioners, the case was adjourned to 1-11-2001 and it was reported that D-2 died and case was posted for taking steps to bring the legal representatives of D-2. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 14-3-2002 for getting the legal representatives of D-2 on record. It is not known whether the legal representatives were brought on record or not but the case was posted to 14-3-2002 for the purpose of cross-examination of PW-1 also. On that date, it appears that PW-1 was present but cross-examination was not done on behalf of defendants 2 to 6 and, therefore, the right of cross-examination was forfeited and posted to 19-3-2002 and 26-3-2002 for further evidence of the plaintiff. On that date, it appears that PW-1 was present but cross-examination was not done on behalf of defendants 2 to 6 and, therefore, the right of cross-examination was forfeited and posted to 19-3-2002 and 26-3-2002 for further evidence of the plaintiff. Plaintiffs' evidence was closed on 26-3-2002 and posted to 1-4-2002 for the defendants' evidence. Thereafter, the petitioners came forward with the aforesaid application under Order XVIII Rule 17 on 19-4-2002 to recall PW-1. The said application has been dismissed. It is to be seen that the case was posted for cross-examination on 14-3-2002 and also for taking steps to bring the legal representatives of D-2 on record. It was not specifically posted the case for the cross- examination of PW-1 on 14-3-2002 but the fact remains that the case was coming for the cross-examination of PW1 and also for taking steps to bring the legal representatives of D-2 on record. On the same day itself, the right of cross-examination was forfeited and immediately within 35 days, the petitioners filed an application showing sufficient cause as to why they could not cross-examine PW-1 as their advocate was out of station but the said statement was disbelieved. The petition was not dismissed on the ground of abnormal delay and no sufficient cause has been shown under Order XVIII Rule 17. Under order XVIII Rule 17, the Court may at any stage of the suit recall any witness who has been examined and may put such question to him as the Court thinks fit. The said application has been rightly filed under order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151, showing sufficient cause and when the subject matter of the suit is related to the immovable property for declaration of the title, it is not desirable to shut the parties from adducing the evidence. The Court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not allowing the petitioners to recall PW-1 for the purpose of cross-examination. The Court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly and dismissed the application without any justification. (4) Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside and. A. 466/2002 filed by the petitioners under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for the purpose of cross-examination of PW-1 on their behalf is allowed. (5) There shall be no order as to costs.