JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: - Plaintiff Krishan Baldev has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 05.02.2011 (Annexure P-7), passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala thereby allowing application (Annexure P-5) moved by defendant-respondent for recalling Kulwinder Singh PW2 for further cross-examination. 2. Plaintiff-petitioner has filed suit against defendant-respondent Dev Singh for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 11.05.1998 and extended on 10.05.2001. The plaintiff in his evidence examined Kulwinder Singh (PW2), a witness of the agreement. He deposed in favour of the plaintiff that defendant had executed the aforesaid agreement and it was witnessed by him i.e. Kulwinder Singh. 3. Defendant in his application (Annexure P-5) alleged that on his application moved to the police, FIR No.291 dated 19.08.2010 had been registered in Police Station Kotwali, Patiala that the impugned agreement was result of fraud and forgery. It was also alleged that during investigation of the said FIR, Kulwinder Singh suffered statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, confessing that his signatures were taken on blank paper by the plaintiff and signatures of defendant were already taken on blank paper and the alleged agreement was prepared thereafter. The defendant, therefore, prayed that Kulwinder Singh (PW2) be recalled for further cross-examination in view of aforesaid statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 4. Plaintiff, by filing reply (Annexure P-6), resisted the aforesaid application. It was inter-alia pleaded that defendant in his written-statement has not pleaded that his signatures or signatures of Kulwinder Singh (PW2) had been obtained on blank paper. It was also alleged that the aforesaid FIR was time barred and has been registered to pressurize the plaintiff. Kulwinder Singh (PW2) has since left the job of the plaintiff and has now joined hands with defendant. Various other pleas were also raised. 5. Learned trial Court vide impugned order (Annexure P-7) allowed the defendant’s application for further cross-examination of Kulwinder Singh (PW2). 6. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 8. Counsel for the parties reiterated the stand as taken in application (Annexure P-5) and reply (Annexure P-6). 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 6. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 8. Counsel for the parties reiterated the stand as taken in application (Annexure P-5) and reply (Annexure P-6). 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The defendant in his written statement (Annexure P-2) has nowhere pleaded that his signatures had been taken on blank paper which was lateron converted into impugned agreement. Thus, the defendant now wants to set up a new case which cannot be permitted. On the contrary, the agreement purports to bear thumb impression and not signatures of the defendant. The alleged statement made by Kulwinder Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not been placed on record of the trial Court. Consequently, it cannot be said as to what has been stated by Kulwinder Singh (PW2) in the said statement. Moreover, Kulwinder Singh (PW2) in the witness box, in the instant suit, has stated about due execution of the agreement by the defendant and witnessed by him and he has already been cross-examined. If the said witness now, apparently at the instance of defendant, has allegedly changed his statement in his alleged statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it cannot be a ground for recalling the witness. On the other hand, the said witness has turned hostile to the plaintiff because the witness has since left the job of the plaintiff. It may also be added that the aforesaid FIR lodged by the defendant has since been quashed by this Court, as submitted by learned counsel for the parties, although according to counsel for the respondent, the said FIR was quashed on technical ground of being time barred. 10. Counsel for the respondent relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K.Velusamy versus N.Palanisamy 2001 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 875. This judgment does not help the respondent in any manner and rather goes against him. It lays down that Court has ample power under Order 18 Rule 17 as well as inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall any witness for further examination or cross-examination. However, at the same time, the Supreme Court laid down that such power cannot be invoked routinely for reopening the evidence or for recalling of witnesses. However, at the same time, the Supreme Court laid down that such power cannot be invoked routinely for reopening the evidence or for recalling of witnesses. The said power has to be used sparingly in appropriate cases to clarify any doubts which may be there regarding the evidence of the parties but the said power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. In the instant case, respondent-defendant has failed to make out a sufficient ground for recalling of Kulwinder Singh (PW2) for further cross-examination. There is no doubt or ambiguity in his statement already recorded which may require clarification by way of further cross-examination. The witness cannot be recalled to help the defendant by taking about-turn from the statement already made by him in the witness box. Even in the case of K.K.Valusamy (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not allow the prayer of appellant for recalling of the witnesses but simply directed the trial Court to decide the application afresh in accordance with law. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that impugned order of the trial Court is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. The trial Court has exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in it. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial Court is set aside and application (Annexure P-5) moved by defendant-respondent is dismissed. Any observation made in this order shall have no bearing on merits of the suit. --------------