JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bharat Prataap Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The respondent No. 2 is the plaintiff in a suit filed for cancellation of the sale-deed which is in dispute. The matter proceeded and evidence was led. The petitioners who are the defendants as well as the respondents who are the plaintiffs both of them filed their respective lists of witnesses. The plaintiffs-respondents did not name Raj Pal Singh as one of their witnesses inspite of the fact that he was an attesting witness to the sale-deed, the cancellation whereof was sought. 3. The petitioners who were the defendants had enlisted Raj Pal Singh as one of their witnesses and his affidavit had been filed. Raj Pal Singh, however, did not turn up for cross-examination and the evidence was closed. The evidence of both sides was closed and later on an application was filed by the respondent-plaintiff to recall Raj Pal Singh for being cross-examined. This application has been allowed in the interest of justice by the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 26.11.2005. 4. The defendants aggrieved by the said order, filed a revision which has been dismissed, hence this Writ Petition in which an interim order was passed on 2nd May, 2006 staying further proceedings in the suit. 5. The power to recall a witness is contained in Rule 17 of Order XVIII of the Civil Procedure Code which is reproduced herein under: “17. Court may recall and examine witness.—The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.” A perusal of the said Rule indicates that the power of the Court to recall a witness is conceded and the Court can do so at any stage of the suit. 6. Sri Pandey submits that the witnesses had already been enlisted by the plaintiffs and the affidavits had been filed by the respondents witnesses. The plaintiffs did not choose to move any application before closure of evidence, nor even Raj Pal Singh was named in the list of witnesses supplied by them. 6. Sri Pandey submits that the witnesses had already been enlisted by the plaintiffs and the affidavits had been filed by the respondents witnesses. The plaintiffs did not choose to move any application before closure of evidence, nor even Raj Pal Singh was named in the list of witnesses supplied by them. He, therefore, contends that the respondents-plaintiffs had full opportunity for calling upon the said witness or moving an application to that effect before the closure of evidence which they failed to do. He, therefore, submits that moving of an application after closure of evidence was an attempt to fill in the lacuna or to take an undue advantage by winning over the mind of witness who was named by the petitioners. In such a situation when these objections were taken before the trial Court, the trial Court was under an obligation to record reasons thereon and not allow the application merely in the interest of justice. He, therefore, contends that the discretion exercised by the Trial Court for recall of Raj Pal Singh is not a judicious discretion. 7. Sri Bharat Patap Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, submits that Raj Pal Singh is an important witness as he has attested the sale-deed. The cancellation whereof has been sought by the respondent-plaintiff. In such a situation his cross-examination was necessary in order to advance the case of the plaintiff and, therefore, the trial Court rightly allowed the application of the plaintiff in the interest of justice. 8. In rejoinder Sri Pandey submits that the interest of justice would be defeated if a witness is sought to be recalled in order to fill up a lacuna and this should not be permitted by the Court unless there are strong and compelling reasons for the same. In absence of any reason having been recorded, the impugned order is unsustainable. Sri Pandey further submits that this material irregularity has not been noticed by the Revisional Court and, as such, the impugned order passed in revision is also unsustainable for the same reasons. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of Rule 17 of order XVIII of C.P.C. would indicate that power to recall a witness is a very wide power conferred on the Court and which is necessary in order to arrive at the truth of the contentions raised by the parties. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of Rule 17 of order XVIII of C.P.C. would indicate that power to recall a witness is a very wide power conferred on the Court and which is necessary in order to arrive at the truth of the contentions raised by the parties. Accordingly, the power of the Court cannot be doubted, but at the same time the power should not be exercised non-judiciously or casually in order to provide any undue advantage to either of the parties. A mere recital that it is being done in the interest of justice, should also be supported by a cogent reason, more so when facts have been categorically pleaded by both sides. The trial Court, therefore, should have recorded its reasons on the stand taken by the parties for recall of the witness in order to ascertain the relevance thereof even if it was for the purpose of advancing the cause of justice. 10. A judicious discretion is that which is exercised in accordance with law as explained by the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India and others, 2006 (10) SCC 1 . The trial Court, therefore, will have to exercise its discretion and record reasons in order to allow the recall of the witness as per the powers conferred under Rule 17 Order XVIII C.P.C. The Revisional Court has also committed an irregularity by not noticing the aforesaid aspect of the matter and as such both the orders dated 26.11.2005 and the order of the Revisional Court dated 12.1.2006 are unsustainable and are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to dispose of the application for recall of the said witness in the light of the observations made herein above within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and also endeavour to decide the suit itself which has been pending for more than a decade preferably within one year from today. The Writ Petition is allowed. ——————