ORDER 17.1.2003 — Heard further argument. 2. In this application under Section 115, C.P.C. petition¬er challenges legality and propriety of the order dated 22.6.2002 passed in Title Suit No.443 of 1995 by the First Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Cuttack. Petitioner is the plaintiff in that suit and the Opposite party members appear as the defend¬ants. 3. It appears that defendant No.4 did not appear in re¬sponse to the summons for settlement of issue and therefore, the suit proceeded ex parte against her. Her minor son, defendant No.6, was represented by a guardian ad litem (in short, ‘G.A.L.’) appointed by the Court. After recording of the evidence of P.W. No.1 (through Commission), in the suit an application under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C. filed by defendant No.4 for self was allowed by the trial Court on 22.3.2002. Thereafter, on an application to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination was heard and allowed by the trial Court. Petitioner challenges that order on the ground that the trial Court had no legal authority to pass such an order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pattnaik argues that in view of the ratio in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others, AIR 1964 SC 993 , the trial Court was precluded from exercising the inherent power under Section 151, C.P.C. to pass order to recall the witness on the face of statutory bar and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Opposite party members represented through different set of counsel however do not subscribe to the view expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, both on the factual aspect as well as on the legal concept. While learned counsel for the O.P./defendants 4 and 6 argues that the impugned order is just and proper and in accordance with the provision of law, Mr. M.M. Das, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 fairly interprets the provision of Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C. and its scope and implication and draws attention of the Court to the following passage from the above cited case of Arjun Singh (supra) in support of his contention that the impugned order is not contrary to either the provision in C.P.C. or the ratio in that case. In paragraph - 19 of the said decision. Their Lord¬ships have been pleased to observe that : “19. xx xx xx. In paragraph - 19 of the said decision. Their Lord¬ships have been pleased to observe that : “19. xx xx xx. On the terms of O. IX R. 7 if the defendant appears on such adjourned date satisfies the Court by showing good cause for his non-appearance on the previous day or days he might have the earlier proceedings recalled - “ set the clock back” and have the suit heard in his presence. On the other hand, he might fail in showing good cause. Even in such a case he is not penalised in the sense of being forbidden to take part in the further proceedings of the suit or what ever might still remain of the trial, only he cannot claim to be relegated to the posi¬tion that he occupied at the commencement of the trial. Thus every contingency which is likely to happen in the trial vis-a-vis the non-appearance of the defendant at the hearing of a suit has been provided for and O. IX R. 7 and O. IX R. 13 between them exhaust the whole gamut of situations that might arise during the course of the trial. If this provision has been made for every contingency, it stands to reason that there is no scope for the invocation of the inherent powers of the Court to make an order necessary for the ends of justice, xx xx xx.” Therefore, it is clearly readable from the above authority that after allowing the application under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C. defendant No.4 was relegated to the stage, i.e., the stage when she was set ex parte. Apart from that, while considering the circumstances the trial Court has also taken note of the fact that the guardian ad litem (G.A.L.) did not properly represented to the interest of the minor. Taking totality of such facts and circumstances and the position of law, trial Court has allowed to recall P.W. No.1 for the purpose of cross-examination by defend¬ant Nos.1 and 6 at the cost of defendant No.4. Taking totality of such facts and circumstances and the position of law, trial Court has allowed to recall P.W. No.1 for the purpose of cross-examination by defend¬ant Nos.1 and 6 at the cost of defendant No.4. That order, there¬fore, cannot be construed as contrary to provision in Order 9, Rule 7, nor it can be regarded as an order under Section 151, C.P.C. with exclusion and non-consideration of the provision in Order 9, Rule 7 read with Order 18, Rule 17, C.P.C. Therefore, this Court finds that there is neither procedural irregularities nor there is wrong exercise of the jurisdiction for recalling the witness for further cross-examination. Accordingly, the civil revision stands dismissed. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the suit is of year 1995, it may be targeted for early disposal. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants/O.Ps. have no objection, provided that P.W.1 is fur¬ther cross-examined and other witnesses are produced by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is observed that the trial Court shall report to day-to-day hearing, as far as practicable, and to expedite disposal of the suit. Soon after closure of the evidence from the side of the plaintiff, defendants be called upon to adduce their evidence without granting liberal adjournments. Revision dismissed.