1. Heard Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent in CR(P) 11(SH)/2004 and Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Sunar, learned counsel for the respondent in CR(P) No. 12(SH)/2004. 2. Both the revision petitions involve the same set of facts and similar reliefs have been prayed for and, thus, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. The two (Ref.) L.A. Case, namely; (Ref.) L.A. Case No. 35(B) of 1993 and (Ref.) LA Case No. 36(B) of 1993 were referred to the Reference Court by the Deputy Commissioner, Ribhoi District. The said reference cases were referred to the court for determination of the actual amount of compensation to be paid to the opposite party. 4. During the trial of the cases, the Reference Court has examined the opposite party as claimants and the witness was examined and cross-examined. However, at a subsequent stage, the petitioner has filed a petition praying for recalling the claimant for further cross-examination by the petitioner. The ground as stated in paragraph 4*of the petition is that at the time of cross-examination of the claimant, certain facts relating to the sale deed of the land acquired and the value of the land were not placed before the witness for cross-examination. Therefore, for proper adjudication of the matter, these documents are proper to be confronted to the witness. 5. These revision petitions are filed under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and the matter regarding calling of witnesses has been dealt with by this court in the case of Shri Rudreswar Dihingia v. Shri Pundu Mura, (1998) 2 GLT 329. The learned Single Judge, of this court has observed that before passing an order for recalling a witness, the court must be satisfied and accordingly record reasons that it is necessary to do so for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the court. The court, however, did not lay down the criteria for exercising of such power under section 151, Cr. PC. However, learned Single Judge has opined that the powers may be exercised in rare cases and after recording sufficient and cogent reasons. The court, however, did not lay down the criteria for exercising of such power under section 151, Cr. PC. However, learned Single Judge has opined that the powers may be exercised in rare cases and after recording sufficient and cogent reasons. The example cited by the learned Single a Judge is that after witness is discharged after cross-examination new facts come to light, the witness may be recalled for re-cross-examination. 6. In the instant cases, the matter relate to the adjudication of the market value of the land which has to be determined by the court by comparing the sale deeds of the land adjacent to and near about the acquired land. Therefore, the discovery of the sale deed by the petitioner at the later stage which relates to the rate of land in the area is a new fact which has to be examined by the court to enable the court to assess the correct market value of the land acquired. Therefore, in my opinion the ends of justice would be met by allowing the petitioner to recall the witness who were examined and cross-examined before the Keference Court. This court is also of the opinion that in the instant case no prejudice will be caused to the opposite party if the witness is recalled for re-cross-examination. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders 14.12.2003 and 19.12.2003 passed by the Reference Court are here by set aside and quashed. The Reference Court is directed to recall the witness for re-cross-examination by the petitioner. 8. As a result these revision petitions are allowed and disposed of. 9. Registry to transmit the LCR forthwith.