JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. 1. This civil revision under section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow in Regular Suit No.7 of 2007, whereby the learned court has allowed the application No.C-107 moved by the opposite parties for recall of the revisionist for further cross-examination. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow against the opposite parties for restraining them from telecasting the TV serial "Neem Ka Ped". The case of the revisionist was that he had written a story title "Neem Ka Darakht" which was adopted by the opposite parties for making it into a TV serial after seeking his permission. However, the first 13 episodes were telecasted with the credit of story writing but from episode 14 the plaintiff was given a credit as additional story writer. The opposite parties, however, did not give any credit as a story writer to the revisionist in respect of subsequent episodes. The revisionist also prayed for temporary injunction under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC upon which an order dated 13.03.2007 was passed restraining the opposite parties from telecasting further episodes of TV serial. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid restraint order, a civil revision No.45 of 2007 was filed. In the said revision, the injunction order was vacated and the revision was disposed of on 25th July, 2007 with certain directions and the trial court was directed to decide the application for interim injunction within a time frame. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned trial court by the order dated 07.09.2007 allowed the application for grant of temporary injunction and again restrained the opposite parties. Being dissatisfied with the final order passed on the application, the opposite party no.1 filed FAFO No.1033 of 2007 before this Court which was disposed of on 25.01.2008 and the order dated 07.09.2007 was set aside. However, the trial court was directed to decide the original suit within a period of six months. It was also directed that the parties shall co-operate before the court below and would not seek any unnecessary adjournment. After the disposal of the aforesaid first appeal from order on 25.01.2008, the parties exchanged their pleadings and issues were framed and the parties were called upon to lead their evidence. It was also directed that the parties shall co-operate before the court below and would not seek any unnecessary adjournment. After the disposal of the aforesaid first appeal from order on 25.01.2008, the parties exchanged their pleadings and issues were framed and the parties were called upon to lead their evidence. The revisionist being the plaintiff in original suit, examined himself as PW-1 but his cross-examination could not be completed even after a gap of four years and consequently the court closed further cross-examination vide order dated 10.04.2012. Since the examination-in-chief was to be conducted by way of filing affidavit, the revisionist filed affidavit of two witnesses, namely, Amin and S.S.Grewal who were cross-examined and with that the evidence of revisionist was concluded. The case was thereafter listed for evidence of the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties kept on seeking time for evidence, but did not file any affidavit. It so happened that on 25.05.2013 i.e. after a gap of one year, the opposite parties preferred an application for recall of the order dated 10.04.2012 and made a request that the revisionist be recalled again for further cross-examination. This application was strongly opposed by the revisionist and a detailed objection was filed, but the learned trial court by means of the impugned order, allowed the application merely on the ground that in the interest of justice further cross-examination of the revisionist was necessary. 4. I have heard Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri C.B. Pandey who has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and have also gone through the record. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the provision for recall of the witness is enumerated under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC which empowers the court to recall any witness at any stage of the proceedings and put such questions to him as the court thinks fit. The submission of the learned counsel is that although the court is empowered to recall any witness either on the application of a party or even without any application, but there has to be some ground for recall of the witness and by invoking this provision, the court can not recall any witness only for the ends of justice without clarifying as to for what purpose the witness was being recalled. In the instant case, the revisionist was recalled on the application of the opposite parties, but the opposite parties in their application did not specify as to for what purpose the witness was to be recalled. The application is not supported by any affidavit and it has no where been sated as to what was left out to be cross-examined while as a matter of fact the cross-examination of the revisionist continued for a period of four years and more than 100 dates were fixed for cross-examination of the revisionist. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that after the closure of cross-examination of the revisionist, two more witnesses of the revisionist were examined and cross-examined and after the conclusion of the evidence of the revisionist, a period of one year was passed, but the opposite parties did not give their evidence and after a gap of one year moved an application for recall of the revisionist for further cross-examination. This conduct of the opposite parties clearly goes to show that the opposite parties only want to linger on the proceedings of the suit in one way or the other in utter disobedience of the earlier order passed by this Court whereby a direction was given to finally decide the suit within a period of six months. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a decision reported in (2009) 4 SCC, page 410 Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar Vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, in this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the provision of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. The main purpose of this provision is to enable the court to clarify any doubts that may have arisen during the course of his examination. If evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, trial court may permit recall of such witness. If the party seeking recall of the witness wants to introduce a new evidence which was available at the time of his examination, the court should not grant permission for recall of the witness. 7. Reliance has also been placed upon a decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of V. Shanmugam Vs. If the party seeking recall of the witness wants to introduce a new evidence which was available at the time of his examination, the court should not grant permission for recall of the witness. 7. Reliance has also been placed upon a decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of V. Shanmugam Vs. S. Umamaheswaran in which it has been held that the power of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall a witness is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. Where no exceptional circumstances have been made out, the rejection of the application cannot be called as non-judicial approach and the High Court cannot interfere. 8. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the application of the opposite party was allowed subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as cost, but for a very long time neither the cost was paid nor deposited which was made only after a long gap. The submission of the learned counsel is that by not depositing the cost and by further entering into cross-examination of the other witnesses of the revisionist, it should be presumed that the opposite parties forfeited their right to recall the witness for further cross-examination. 9. Sri C.B.Pandey learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has, on the other hand, submitted that so far as the argument put forward by the counsel for the revisionist on non-payment of cost is concerned, the opposite parties have already deposited the amount of cost before the court below. He has further argued that the Order 18 Rule 17 CPC does not require any specific ground for recall of the witness because under this provision, the court has inherent power to recall a witness at any stage of the proceeding if it finds that the recall of the witness is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy. If the opposite parties cross-examined the other witnesses of the revisionist, it cannot be presumed that their right to recall the witness was forfeited. Learned court below after a detailed discussion came to the conclusion that further cross-examination of the revisionist was necessary in the ends of justice, and therefore, the application of the opposite party was allowed subject to payment of cost which was also deposited by the opposite parties. 10. Learned court below after a detailed discussion came to the conclusion that further cross-examination of the revisionist was necessary in the ends of justice, and therefore, the application of the opposite party was allowed subject to payment of cost which was also deposited by the opposite parties. 10. Sri C.B.Pandey has also relied upon a decision reported in (2005) 6 SCC, page 344 in which the amendments proposed in the Code of Civil Procedure were challenged and in para-32 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even after deletion of the provision of Order 18 Rule 2 (4), the court has inherent power to call for any witness at any stage either suo motu or on the prayer of a party invoking the inherent powers of the court. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the provision of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, it is not in dispute that the court has power to recall any witness at any stage of the suit, but the power to recall a witness cannot be exercised in a cursory manner. The court while taking recourse of this provision must assign reason as to for what purpose the witness is required to be recalled. In this case, a perusal of the pleadings and the material on record reveal that by the order dated 25.01.2008 a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of FAFO No. 1033 of 2007 directed the trial court to decide the suit within a period of six months. The parties were also directed to co-operate before the court and not to seek any unnecessary adjournment. However, inspite of the aforesaid order and filing of the affidavit by the revisionist in the year 2008 itself, his cross-examination continued for a period of four years and more than hundred dates were fixed but for the reason best known to the opposite parties, the cross-examination could not be completed and the learned court below by the order dated 10.04.2012 closed the cross-examination of the revisionist. Thereafter the revisionist filed affidavit of his two more witnesses and those witnesses were cross-examined by the opposite parties. The evidence of the revisionist was then concluded and the opposite parties were called upon to give their evidence. Thereafter the revisionist filed affidavit of his two more witnesses and those witnesses were cross-examined by the opposite parties. The evidence of the revisionist was then concluded and the opposite parties were called upon to give their evidence. However, they did not produce their evidence of a period of about one year and in the year 2013 they moved an application for recall of the order dated 10.04.2012 without assigning any reason as to for what purpose they want recall of the revisionist. The learned court below also did not assign any reason for allowing the application and simply made an observation that in the interest of justice the revisionist should be recalled for further cross-examination. Although the court has a discretion under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall a witness, but the discretion has to be exercised in a judicial manner specially when the conduct of the opposite party was such that they did not conclude the cross-examination even for a period of four years and after the closure of cross-examination, they waited for further long time and after the closure of the evidence of the revisionist, they applied for recall of the order. The purpose of recalling a witness as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to remove any doubt if arisen during the course of the examination. It is not the purpose of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to fill up the lacuna or lead a fresh evidence which was earlier in the knowledge of the parties. Therefore, the court has to be cautions and this power should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order, I find that the approach adopted by the learned court below in allowing the application of opposite party is absolutely non-judicial approach as no reason has been assigned as to why the recall of the witness was necessary when the opposite parties had not clarified in their application as to for what purpose the witness is to be recalled. The learned court below also did not record any finding as to how the further cross-examination of the revisionist was necessary. Merely observing that it was necessary in the ends of justice, is not sufficient. The court had to record a specific finding while recalling the witness as to why his further cross-examination was necessary. The learned court below also did not record any finding as to how the further cross-examination of the revisionist was necessary. Merely observing that it was necessary in the ends of justice, is not sufficient. The court had to record a specific finding while recalling the witness as to why his further cross-examination was necessary. Thus, the impugned order dated 07.11.2013 cannot be allowed to stand and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the revision deserves to be allowed. 13. The revision is allowed and the order dated 07.11.2013 is set aside. The trial court is directed to comply with the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court which is dated 25.01.2008 and make every endeavour to decide the suit at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it without granting unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. 14. There will be no order as to cost.