Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the Fair and Decretal Order dated 09.05.2005 made in I.A.No.110 of 2003 in O.S.No.119 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur.) This Revision is preferred against the order of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur made in I.A. No.110 of 2003 in O.S.No.119 of 1996 dated 09.04.2003 dismissing the Petition filed under Or.18 R.17 read with Sec.151 C.P.C. declining to recall D.W-1 for the purpose of marking the Sale Deed in favour of one Chokka Konar. The Second Defendant is the Revision Petitioner. 2. O.S.No.119 of 1996:- The Suit Property relates to S.No.232/18 – 0.03.0 Ares, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukottai District. The Suit Property belongs to the Plaintiff ancestrally. In the Suit Property, there was Velikaruvai trees. The Plaintiff had been cutting the Velikaruvai trees and in enjoyment of the Suit Property by paying Kist etc. On 31.01.1996, when the Plaintiff was cutting the trees, the Defendants claiming right over the Suit Property prevented the Plaintiff from cutting the trees. The Plaintiff had issued Legal Notice on 05.02.1996. Though the Defendants have received the Notice, they have not sent any reply. Thereafter, the Defendants did not cause disturbance to the Plaintiff's possession of the Suit Property. Few days prior to the filing of the Suit, the Defendants again attempted to tresspass into the Suit Property. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction. 3. Denying the allegations, the Defendants have filed the Written Statement contending that an extent of four cents originally belonged to one Arumugam Pillai by way of Assignment from the Government. Legal Heirs of the said Arumugam Pillai, namely, Velu Pillai and Shanmugam Pillai have executed a valid registered Sale Deed in favour of one Periyaiah Konar on 21.12.1955. The said Periyaiah Konar had sold the four cents of Suit Property to Chellammal, mother of the Second Defendant on 20.04.1957 by a registered Sale Deed. From the date of purchase, the Second Defendant's mother was in possession and enjoyment of the four cents of Suit Property. After her death, the Second Defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by implanting stones on all the four sides. The Second Defendant had also put up a thatched shed. He has also raised Eucalyptus trees in the Suit Property. After her death, the Second Defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by implanting stones on all the four sides. The Second Defendant had also put up a thatched shed. He has also raised Eucalyptus trees in the Suit Property. On the Southern Side of D-2's Property, the First Defendant is in enjoyment of about three cents of Suit Property. The First Defendant had also put up a thatched shed and using the same as a kitchen. The Plaintiff has not paid Kist to the Suit Property at any point of time. Since the Plaintiff is not in possession of the Suit Property, he is not entitled to seek the relief for Permanent Injunction. 4. The Trial commenced, Witnesses have been examined on both sides. At that stage, I.A.No.110 of 2003 was filed under Or.18, R.17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for the purpose of marking the Sale Deed dated 16.04.1970 executed in favour of one Chokka Konar by recalling DW-1. 5. The above Application was resisted by the Plaintiff contending that the Suit has been pending for nearly two years. The Defendants have taken many adjournments for their evidence. The reasons stated to recall D.W-1 is not a genuine one. Earlier similar Application was filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to examine the Witnesses and the same was dismissed by the Court. While so, once again the Second Defendant has filed the Application to recall himself to mark the Sale Deed in favour of one Chokka Konar, which cannot be allowed. 6. The Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur dismissed the Application pointing out that already Chief Examination and Cross Examination of the Witnesses had been completed. The Lower Court was of the view that D.W-1 is not competent to speak about the Sale Deed in favour of Chokka Konar and no valid reasons have been made out to recall D.W-1 and accordingly dismissed the Application. 7. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Application to recall D.W.1 for the purpose of marking the Sale Deed, the Second Defendant has preferred this Revision. 8. 7. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Application to recall D.W.1 for the purpose of marking the Sale Deed, the Second Defendant has preferred this Revision. 8. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Second Defendant has contended that the Sale Deed dated 16.04.1970 is the Sale Deed in favour of the third party, which was not within the immediate knowledge of the Revision Petitioner/Second Defendant and the Court below ought to have given D.W -1 an opportunity to produce the document. The impugned order is attacked mainly on the ground that the Court below erred in observing out that D.W-1 is not a competent witness to speak about the document. Submitting that an opportunity is to be given to the Second Defendant to put forth his case, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Second Defendant urged to reverse the impugned order. 9. Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has submitted that the Sale Deed in favour of Chokka Konar cannot be received in evidence by recalling DW-1. Contending that the trial has been prolonged for more than two years, the learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff further submitted that the Application under Or.18 R.17 C.P.C. has been filed only to delay the conclusion of the trial. The learned counsel has further submitted that Or.18 R.17 C.P.C. cannot be claimed as of right and when the trial was concluded, the defendants were not justified in filing the Application to recall DW-1. 10. The following points arise for consideration: - (i) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the dismissal of the earlier Application - I.A.No.37 of 2003 invoking the discretionary power of the Court under Or.18 R.17 C.P.C., can D.W-1 be recalled for the purpose of marking the Sale Deed in the name of Chokka Konar? and (ii) Whether the impugned order declining to recall D.W-1 to mark the Sale Deed suffers from any serious error warranting interference? 11. The counter statement filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff refers to the earlier similar Application filed by the Defendants. Sufficient details are not furnished in the typed set of papers. Hence, report was called for from the Lower Court - District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur calling for the details regarding the number of witnesses examined on the side of the Plaintiff and the Defendants and about the previous Application filed by the Defendant. 12. Sufficient details are not furnished in the typed set of papers. Hence, report was called for from the Lower Court - District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur calling for the details regarding the number of witnesses examined on the side of the Plaintiff and the Defendants and about the previous Application filed by the Defendant. 12. The Suit is for Permanent Injunction relating to S.No.232/18 – 0.03.0 Ares of Kulathar Taluk, Pudukottai District. The Plaintiff claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property ancestrally. According to him, he raised trees and in enjoyment of the Suit Property by cutting the Velikaruvai trees in the Suit Property every now and then. The Defendants claimed title to the Suit Property through the Sale Deed said to have been executed in favour of the Second Defendant's mother Chellammal by a Sale Deed dated 20.04.1957. The Suit is of the year 1996 and pending trial for long number of years. The issues have been framed in the year 1996. After the filing of the Suit, D-1 - Velupillai died. His Legal Heirs have been impleaded as the Defendants. I.A.No.300 of 2001-Amendment Application was filed and allowed and Amendment was carried out. Thereafter, the case was posted in the list on 10.06.2002. 13. The trial commenced on 14.06.2002. On the side of the Plaintiffs, P.Ws -1 and 2 have been examined. Exs.A1 to A6 have been produced. Thereafter, on 17.07.2002, D.W-1 was examined. Exs. B1 to B3 were marked. From 28.08.2002, the case was adjourned to number of hearings for adducing further evidence of Defendants. The trial was stretched to number of hearings atleast 17-20 hearings for adducing the Defendants' evidence. For recording Chief Examination of D.W-3 alone, the case seems to have been adjourned for more than six hearings. Finally on 06.01.2003, the case was posted for continuation of Chief Examination of D.W-3. On the same day, D.W.-3 was examined in Chief and Cross-examined. Thereafter, the case was posted for Defendants' further evidence for number of hearings from 12.03.2003. 14. On 07.02.2003, I.A.No.37 of 2003 was filed under Or.16 R.1 (2) C.P.C. praying to issue summons to Chokka Konar and also direct him to produce the Sale Deed dated 16.04.1970 executed by one Lakshmanan Chettiar. Thereafter, the case was posted for Defendants' further evidence for number of hearings from 12.03.2003. 14. On 07.02.2003, I.A.No.37 of 2003 was filed under Or.16 R.1 (2) C.P.C. praying to issue summons to Chokka Konar and also direct him to produce the Sale Deed dated 16.04.1970 executed by one Lakshmanan Chettiar. According to the Second Defendant, the Suit Property has been described as the Property belonging to the Second Defendant in the boundary recitals of the said Sale Deed dated 16.04.1970. I.A.No.37 of 2003 was dismissed by the order of the Lower Court dated 24.02.2003. 15. Thereafter, for the same relief of marking the Sale Deed in favour of Chokka Konar (dated 16.04.1970) I.A.No.110 of 2003 was filed to recall D.W-1 for the purpose of marking the said Sale Deed. Having filed earlier Application under Or.16 R.1 (2) C.P.C. praying to issue the summons to Chokka Konar for producing the document, the Revision Petitioner/Second Defendant cannot turn round and seek to examine himself for the purpose of marking the Sale Deed in favour of Chokka Konar. As discussed earlier, for the adducing the Defendants' evidence, the case has been pending part heard for a long time. For recording the Defendants' evidence, the hearings stretched over for a long period of more than one year from 17.07.2002 to 14.07.2003. The inordinate delay in filing the Application to produce the document is not satisfactorily explained. Having failed in the earlier attempt in I.A.No.37 of 2003, it is not open to the Second Defendant to file Similar Application to produce the document - Sale Deed of Chokka Konar through himself. 16. Or.18 R.17 C.P.C. is the enabling provision for the Court to recall any witness, who has been examined. Or.18 R.17 C.P.C empowers the Court to recall at any stage a witness who has been examined and cross-examined. Exercising the power under this rule the Court can recall a Witness for the purpose of clarification of any ambiguity or omission noticed. The power can be exercised suo motu as also at the instance of a party. In the decision reported in S.S.S.DURAI PANDIAN ..VS.. Exercising the power under this rule the Court can recall a Witness for the purpose of clarification of any ambiguity or omission noticed. The power can be exercised suo motu as also at the instance of a party. In the decision reported in S.S.S.DURAI PANDIAN ..VS.. S.A.SAMUTHIRA PANDIAN (A.I.R.1998 MADRAS 323) it has been held that the Trial Court has got powers to recall 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. It is also clear that this power is purely discretionary. But the same ought to be exercised with the greatest care and only in the most peculiar circumstances. 16.A. The right of the Court to act under this Rule is not restricted to action of its own motion. Normally Or.18 R.17 C.P.C does not permit the Court to recall a witness at the instance of a party. But in rare cases for the reasons recorded, the Court may recall a witness at the instance of a party under Or.18 R.17 C.P.C. Since Or.18 R.17-A C.P.C is now deleted, the Power of the Court under Or.18 R.17 to recall the Witness at the instance of the party becomes more limited. The power under Or.18 R.17 C.P.C. (to recall a witness at the instance of a party) is to be sparingly exercised in rare cases; lest numerous applications would be filed under Or.18 R.17 C.P.C. Whenever parties desire to produce additional evidence, if those applications are to be allowed invoking Or.18 R.17 C.P.C., it would defeat the object of the Legislature in deleting Or.18 R.17-A C.P.C. 17. The case in hand is not a fit case for exercising the limited powers of the Court under Or.18 R.17 C.P.C. The prayer for recalling D.W-1 for the purpose of marking the Sale Deed in favour of Chokka Konar cannot be allowed mainly for two reasons: - Firstly, sufficient opportunity had already been afforded to the Second Defendant to adduce evidence. Secondly, similar Application was filed in I.A.No.37 of 2003 and after dismissal of the said Application, I.A.No.110 of 2003 was filed to recall D.W-1 for the same purpose for which I.A.No.37 of 2003 was dismissed. In that view of the matter, D.W-1 cannot be ordered to be recalled for the purpose of marking the Sale Deed in favour of Chokka Konar. 18. In that view of the matter, D.W-1 cannot be ordered to be recalled for the purpose of marking the Sale Deed in favour of Chokka Konar. 18. Taking note of the stage in which the Application was filed and the long pendency of the matter in the part heard stage and the dismissal of the earlier Application in I.A.No.37 of 2003, the learned District Munsif has rightly dismissed the Application declining to recall D.W-1. The impugned order does not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference exercising revisional jurisdiction. After C.P.C. Amendment 2002, Revision under Section 115 C.P.C. Against the orders in Interlocutary Application is very much curtailed. This Revision filed under Sec.115 C.P.C. (on 21.6.03) is not maintainable on that score also. This Revision has no merits and is bound to fail. 19. For the foregoing reasons, this Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the Order of District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur dated 09.05.2005 made in I.A.No.110 of 2003 in O.S.No.119 of 1996. Consequently, C.M.P.No.10466 of 2003 is also dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. 20. Since the suit is of the year 1996, the learned District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur is directed to expedite the trial in O.S.No.119 of 1996 and dispose the Suit expeditiously in accordance with law.