JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. (Oral): - Before cross examination of witness Mukesh Kumar could start, a request came from the defendants, on whose behalf he was appearing as a witness, for submitting supplementary affidavit in the shape of additional examination-in-chief, pleading, that some clerical mistake had occurred in the earlier examination-in-chief putforth in the shape of affidavit. In short, supplementary affidavit was sought to be furnished by defendant Mukesh Kumar as his own witness. Correction of the earlier affidavit given in his examination-in-chief is sought to be made. 2. Request of furnishing supplementary affidavit by defendant Mukesh Kumar was allowed by the lower court to enable the defendants to make correction of inadvertent mistake in the earlier affidavit given in the shape of examination-in-chief by defendant Mukesh Kumar. 3. When cross examination had yet not been started and the witness Mukesh Kumar had not even submitted himself to the side of the opponents, i.e., the plaintiffs for cross-examination, more could be introduced in examination-in-chief by way of supplementary affidavit and there is nothing wrong in it. 4. Even otherwise, the Court has enough powers to recall any witness at any stage. In the present case, cross examination of Mukesh Kumar had not yet started. Examination-in-chief in the shape of affidavit, of course, had been made but before the cross-examination could start, typographical errors had been noticed, which were sought to be corrected by way of supplementary affidavit. Such request was granted. 5. There is nothing wrong in grant of such permission to defendant Mukesh Kumar. 6. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————