JUDGMENT ARIJIT BANERJEE, J. 1. In the present revisional application the petitioner challenges the orders dated 22nd January, 2015 and 24th February, 2015 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Barasat in Title Suit No. 67 of 2008. By the order dated 22nd January, 2015, the Ld. Judge allowed the application of the principal defendant/opposite party for leave to adduce further evidence. By the order dated 24th February, 2015 the Ld. Judge took on record the written memorandum of evidence filed on its behalf by one Arun Kumar Agarwal. 2. The undisputed facts of the case as would appear from the documents on record are as follows. 3. On 19th March, 2008 the petitioner as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 67 of 2008 against the opposite party before the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Barasat praying for specific performance of an agreement for sale of a property and permanent injunction. 4. The opposite party/defendant filed its written statement in the suit, although belatedly after lapse of ten months. 5. In the suit, the petitioner took out an application for temporary injunction which was allowed by the Ld. Court below and the order of injunction was made absolute on 25th July, 2008. The opposite party’s application for vacating of the order of interim injunction was dismissed by the Ld. Judge. Being aggrieved, the opposite party preferred an appeal in this court being FMA No. 1473 of 2008. 6. On the basis of the allegation that in spite of subsistence of the order of temporary injunction, the opposite party was changing the nature and character of the suit property, the petitioner applied before the Ld. Trial Court for mandatory injunction. The said application was dismissed by the Ld. Court by an order dated 21st April, 2009 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal in this court being FMAT No. 59 of 2010. 7. The said two appeals being FMA No. 1473 of 2008 and FMAT No. 59 of 2010 were disposed of by this court by an order dated 14th January, 2011 whereby the opposite party was restrained from transferring, alienating or encumbering or from changing the nature and character of the suit property till disposal of the suit on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the entire balance consideration of Rs. 4,80,00,000/- (Rs. 4.8 crores) with the Ld. 4,80,00,000/- (Rs. 4.8 crores) with the Ld. Trial Judge within one month. The Ld. Trial Judge was requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four months from the date of communication of the said order without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 14th January, 2011, the petitioner preferred a special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which was disposed of by an order dated 23rd February, 2011 by extending the time for the petitioner to deposit the said sum of Rs. 4.80 crores and by affirming this Court’s order dated 14th January, 2011. 9. The petitioner deposited the total balance consideration of Rs. 4.80 crores in the Trial Court on 28th February, 2011. 10. The plaintiff’s evidence in chief was filed in the Trial Court on 15th March, 2011. The plaintiff’s witness was examined and cross-examined and was discharged on 19th August, 2011. The defendant’s witness was also examined and cross-examined and was discharged on 9th November, 2011. 11. It would appear from the order dated 9th November, 2011 recorded by the Trial Court that the defendant submitted that it would not adduce any further evidence. Accordingly, the defendant’s evidence was closed. On that date, the petitioner filed an application under Order 19 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of one Arun Kumar Agarwal who had made discovery of documents on oath on behalf of the defendant, to face cross-examination by the plaintiff. The said application was however rejected by the Ld. Trial Court by the order dated 11th January, 2012. 12. During the course of examination of the plaintiff’s witness, an unregistered agreement that the plaintiff’s witness sought to tender in evidence, was impounded and was sent to the Collector, North 24 Parganas for assessment of the stamp duty and penalty. The stamp duty and penalty assessed by the Collector was paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for recalling its witness being PW-1 which was allowed by an order dated 2nd April, 2013. 13. On 27th June, 2013 the defendant filed an application for an order directing the plaintiff to pay the amount of stamp duty and penalty as assessed by the Collector in respect of the aforesaid unregistered agreement. By an order dated 25th September, 2013, the Ld. 13. On 27th June, 2013 the defendant filed an application for an order directing the plaintiff to pay the amount of stamp duty and penalty as assessed by the Collector in respect of the aforesaid unregistered agreement. By an order dated 25th September, 2013, the Ld. Judge dismissed the defendant’s application. 14. The plaintiff’s witness being PW-1 was examined and cross-examined on recall and the witness was discharged on 24th April, 2014. 15. It would appear from the order dated 24th April, 2014 recorded by the Ld. Trial Judge that the Ld. Advocates for the parties submitted that no further evidence would be adduced. Accordingly, evidence was closed and the matter was posted for argument on 5th May, 2014. 16. On 5th May, 2014, due to the resolution taken by the local bar association, the matter was adjourned till 22nd May, 2014 and on that date was again adjourned till 7th July, 2014 for the same reason. 17. On 7th July, 2014 the defendant filed an application for adjournment. The same was allowed and the matter was adjourned till 24th July, 2014. On that date, the defendant took out an application for further adjournment on the ground of change of advocate. Such prayer was allowed and the matter was adjourned till 22nd August, 2014 for argument. 18. Being aggrieved by the delay, the petitioner moved a revisional application before this Court being C.O. No. 2980 of 2014 praying for expeditious disposal of the suit. By an order dated 2nd September, 2014 the said application was disposed of by requesting the District Judge, North 24 Parganas to monitor the progress of the suit and ensure its expeditious disposal. It was further observed in the said order that if the relevant court was unmanned at that moment, the District Judge should take appropriate steps to assign the suit to another coordinate bench for speedy disposal. 19. On 19th September, 2014 the defendant filed an application before the Trial Court praying for leave to adduce further evidence. The said application appears to have been served on the petitioner/plaintiff only on 16th January, 2015. 20. By an order dated 22nd January, 2015, which is impugned herein, the Ld. Trial Judge allowed the defendant’s application on payment of cost of Rs. 1000/-. By an order dated 24th February, 2015 which is also impugned herein, the Ld. The said application appears to have been served on the petitioner/plaintiff only on 16th January, 2015. 20. By an order dated 22nd January, 2015, which is impugned herein, the Ld. Trial Judge allowed the defendant’s application on payment of cost of Rs. 1000/-. By an order dated 24th February, 2015 which is also impugned herein, the Ld. Judge took on record the written memo of evidence filed on behalf of the defendant/opposite party. Being aggrieved by the said two orders, the plaintiff is before this court by way of the instant revisional application. 21. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. Trial Judge ought not to have allowed the defendant’s application for adducing further evidence at such a belated stage. He submitted that a substantial sum of Rs. 4.80 crores belonging to the plaintiff is lying deposited with the Ld. Trial Court since February, 2011. The defendant has tried diverse dilatory tactics to delay the hearing of the suit since it does not have any valid defence of the plaintiff’s claim. On two occasions, that is 9th November, 2011 and 24th April, 2014 it was recorded on behalf of the defendant that it would not adduce any further evidence. In view thereof, the defendant was estopped from filing the application on 19th September, 2014 for leave to adduce further evidence. The oblique motive of the defendant would also be evident from the fact that the said application dated 19th September, 2014 was served on the plaintiff only on 16th January, 2015. He submitted that in the petition dated 19th September, 2014 the defendant has itself stated that it had engaged experienced advocates to draft the written statement and conduct the case on its behalf and as such the contention of the defendant that certain documents were not tendered in evidence earlier due to wrong legal advice is not acceptable. He further pointed out that at an earlier stage the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 19 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for producing Sri Arun Kumar Agarwal who had discovered documents on oath on behalf of the defendant, to face cross-examination by the plaintiff, but the defendant had declined to bring the said Arun Agarwal to the witness box. Hence, now, the defendant should not be allowed to bring the same person to adduce evidence on its behalf. Hence, now, the defendant should not be allowed to bring the same person to adduce evidence on its behalf. He further submitted that as many as 74 documents are sought to be tendered in evidence at this belated stage only to delay the disposal of the suit. Almost all the said documents are irrelevant to the issues involved in the suit. In fine, Mr. Chatterjee vociferously argued that the defendant’s attempt to adduce further evidence at this belated stage is mala-fide, tainted with dishonest motive and an abuse of process of law designed only to prolong the hearing of the suit to deprive the plaintiff of its lawful claim for as long as possible. 22. Mr. Chatterjee relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bagai Construction vs. Gupta Building Material Store, (2013) 14 SCC 1 wherein at paragraph 9 of the judgment it was observed as follows:- “9. In Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) through LRs. vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410 , this Court had an occasion to consider similar claim, particularly, application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 and held as under: “25. In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of witnesses, the main purpose of the said Rule is to enable the court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. 28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and reexamination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. 29. 28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and reexamination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. 29. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicated hereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. 31. Some of the principles akin to Order 47 CPC may be applied when a party makes an application under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, but it is ultimately within the court’s discretion, if it deems fit, to allow such an application. In the present appeal, no such case has been made out.” 23. Relying on the aforesaid judgment Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the defendant is seeking to adduce further evidence at this stage in an attempt to fill up the lacuna in the defendant’s evidence which has already been recorded, which is impermissible. 24. Appearing on behalf of the opposite party, Ld. Counsel submitted that the opposite party had engaged experienced advocates to conduct its case. It got the written statement drafted through such advocates and also adduced evidence as per advice of such advocates. However, when the matter had for a long time not been conducted to its satisfaction, the opposite party took stock of the decision and changed its lawyer. It was then that the opposite party was advised that certain crucial facts and evidence had not been made part of the record even though the same had been pleaded in the written statement. Hence, the application was made by the opposite party for adducing further evidence. He submitted that the additional evidence that the opposite party seeks to adduce is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Hence, the application was made by the opposite party for adducing further evidence. He submitted that the additional evidence that the opposite party seeks to adduce is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Further, certain necessary documents that are required to substantiate the case made out in the written statement could not be produced earlier as the same did not surface at the time of filing the written statement. He submitted that the application made by the opposite party is bona fide and the ends of justice warrant that the opposite party be permitted to adduce further evidence as prayed for. Ld. Counsel supported the order impugned and submitted that the same has not caused any undue prejudice to the petitioner. He prayed for dismissal of the present revisional application. 25. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 26. It is true that at any stage of a suit, the court has the power to allow a party to adduce further evidence. This is so, even if such party had earlier submitted that it would not adduce further evidence. It is possible that due to unintentional inadvertence certain material documents or evidence were not brought on record. It is also possible that after the evidence is closed, certain documents or evidence may come to light which are required to be brought on record to substantiate the case of the concerned party. The court has full discretion in the matter of allowing a party to adduce further evidence. Such discretion has to be exercised judiciously depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. No strait jacket formula can be laid down in this regard. If after considering the conduct of the party concerned and all surrounding circumstances, the court is satisfied that there was a bona fide omission on the part of the party concerned to adduce material evidence earlier or if the court is satisfied that the party concerned was not in a position to adduce such evidence earlier, the court would be justified in permitting the party to adduce such evidence at the subsequent stage. The discretion has to be exercised by the Court to do complete justice between the parties. Of course, the further evidence that the concerned party seeks to adduce must be material and relevant to the issues involved in the suit. 27. The discretion has to be exercised by the Court to do complete justice between the parties. Of course, the further evidence that the concerned party seeks to adduce must be material and relevant to the issues involved in the suit. 27. However, if the court is of the opinion that a party to the suit is seeking to adduce further evidence at a belated stage with a view to prolonging the trial of the suit and delaying the disposal of the suit, it would be a sound exercise of discretion not to allow such party to adduce further evidence. It is not uncommon that a defendant in a suit faced with a claim to which he has no defence, adopts dilatory tactics to keep the suit pending for as long as possible. If the court feels that the defendant in a suit has filed an application for leave to adduce further evidence at a highly belated stage of the suit e.g. when the suit is ready for arguments or where arguments have already started, only to delay the disposal of the suit the court must dismiss such application. 28. In the Case of K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palani Samy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 the Supreme Court observed that the power under Section 151 or Under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (recalling of witnesses) is not intended to be used routinely and merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure to expedite trials. Such observations apply also to cases where a party is seeking leave to adduce fresh evidence after evidence is closed. Where the application to adduce fresh evidence is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, orally or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall a witness or permit fresh evidence. The Supreme Court further observed that if the court does allow fresh evidence, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. The Supreme Court further observed that if the court does allow fresh evidence, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that delay is avoided. However, if the application is found to be mischievous or frivolous or to cover up negligence or lacuna it should be rejected with heavy costs. 29. Having gone through the order impugned in the present application I am of the view that the Ld. Trial Court did not have in mind the aforesaid principles of law. The impugned order is extremely cryptic. The Ld. Judge merely records in one sentence that in his considered opinion the prayer of the defendant to adduce further evidence should succeed for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute. The Ld. Judge appears not to have adverted to the question of whether or not such further evidence is relevant to the issues involved in the suit and whether or not there was sufficient cause for non-production of such evidence earlier. From the facts of the case narrated above, it prima facie appears that the defendant has been attempting to delay the disposal of the case. The conduct of the defendant does not appear to be satisfactory and bona fide. Moreover, costs of Rs. 1000/- awarded by the Ld. Judge is nominal and would hardly compensate the plaintiff for the prejudice it will suffer by reason of the delay in disposal of the suit that will be caused if the defendant is permitted to adduce voluminous evidence at this stage. 30. For the reasons aforesaid, I am unable to sustain the order under challenge. This application succeeds. The order impugned is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. Trial Judge for consideration afresh in the light of the principles of law discussed above. Before the Ld. Judge allows the application of the defendant for adducing further evidence, the Ld. Judge should be satisfied that there was good reason for non-production of such evidence earlier and that prima facie such evidence is relevant to the issues involved in the suit. The Ld. Before the Ld. Judge allows the application of the defendant for adducing further evidence, the Ld. Judge should be satisfied that there was good reason for non-production of such evidence earlier and that prima facie such evidence is relevant to the issues involved in the suit. The Ld. Judge should then award reasonable costs to the plaintiff commensurate with the prejudice that the plaintiff would suffer by reason of delay in disposal of the suit. The Ld. Judge should also stipulate a time framed within which the suit shall be disposed of. 31. I make it clear that the observations made in this order are all prima facie and only for the purpose of disposing of the present application. The Ld. Judge shall consider the defendant’s application for adducing further evidence afresh without being influenced by any observation made in this order and in accordance with the law of the land giving discernible reasons for his order. The application should be disposed of by the Ld. Judge as soon as possible and in any event within one month from the date of communication of this order. Since the suit is pending from 2008, the Ld. Judge shall thereafter dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order. 31. C.O. No. 904 of 2015 is accordingly disposed of. 32. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, in applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities..