JUDGMENT This revisional application at the instance of the plaintiffs landlords in Ejectment Suit No. 14 of 2012 pending before the learned 2nd Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Alipore, South 24Parganas, is directed against the order dated November 30, 2015 passed by the learned Court below rejecting the application of the plaintiffs petitioners praying for recalling of their witness, P.W. 1. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revisional application are briefly stated below. The plaintiffs-petitioners have filed the ejectment suit against the opposite party defendant on the grounds, inter alia, that they reasonably require the suit property situate at 36/1, Old Ballygunge Second Lane, Police Station-Karaya, Kolkata-700 019 for their own use and occupation, as also for building and rebuilding of the suit property under Section 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(d) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. At the trial of the suit before the learned Court below, the plaintiffs- petitioners adduced evidence through two witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and on behalf of the defendant he himself adduce evidence as D.W.-1. After conclusion of the evidence of the defendant-opposite party, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application for amendment of their plaint to the effect that their son has vacated his earlier tenanted property and has shifted to a new tenanted property. By an order dated September 23, 2015, the learned Court below allowed the said amendment application of the plaintiffs-petitioners and allowed the defendant-opposite party to file his additional written statement. Thereafter, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application under order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recalling of P.W. 1 to adduce evidence to prove the amended portion of the plaint. By an order dated November 23, 2015 the learned Court below allowed the said application. Accordingly, the P.W. 1 was recalled and he was examined as also cross-examined by the defendant opposite party. During his cross-examination, the defendant opposite party confronted the P.W. 1 with a copy of a registered deed of conveyance dated January 17, 2014 relating to a flat on the second floor at premises No. 46A, Harish Chatterjee Street, Kolkata-700026 by which, according to the defendant opposite party, the plaintiffs-petitioners have purchased the said flat. The P.W. 1, however, did not admit the said document. The P.W. 1, however, did not admit the said document. On November 23, 2015, the defendant opposite party filed an application before the learned Court below to allow him to adduce evidence on recall, to prove the said deed of conveyance dated January 17, 2014 and the same was fixed for hearing on November 27, 2015. On November 26, 2015 the plaintiffs petitioners filed an application before the learned Court below praying for recalling of the P.W. 1 for explaining and clarifying certain facts relating to the said conveyance dated January 17, 2014 produced by the defendant. By an order dated November 27, 2015 the learned Court below allowed the application of the defendant opposite party by holding that recalling of D.W. 1 is very much necessary to unearth the truth. So far as the application of the plaintiffs petitioners for recalling of the P.W. 1 is concerned, the learned Court below fixed the hearing of the same on November 27, 2015. On November 27, 2015 itself, the D.W. 1 was examined and cross-examined on recall and the said deed of conveyance dated January 17, 2014 was tendered as Exhibit –“D”. Thereafter, on November 27, 2015 itself the learned Court below passed the impugned order rejecting the application of the plaintiffs for recalling of the P.W. 1 on the ground that the said application is not permissible under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1972. The learned Court below held that during the cross-examination of P.W. 1 on November 23, 2015, the defendant tendered the said deed of conveyance but the P.W. 1 refused to admit the same and once the defendant opposite party has proved the said deed of conveyance dated January 17, 2014, the plaintiffs’ application is not maintainable under Section 138 of the Evidence Act. The learned Court below further held that the plaintiffs were given opportunity to cross-examine D.W. 1 to demolish the witness and explain regarding the document whatever they want to state by way of suggestion during cross-examination of the D.W. 1 and at that stage the plaintiffs cannot be given opportunity to re-examine P.W. 1 to fill up lacuna. Mr. The learned Court below further held that the plaintiffs were given opportunity to cross-examine D.W. 1 to demolish the witness and explain regarding the document whatever they want to state by way of suggestion during cross-examination of the D.W. 1 and at that stage the plaintiffs cannot be given opportunity to re-examine P.W. 1 to fill up lacuna. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that from the evidence of the defendant, it is evident that he obtained a certified copy of the said deed of conveyance dated January 17, 2014 after conclusion of evidence of the witnesses both the parties, but the defendant did not file any application praying for amendment of his written statement in support of his defence sought to be raised in the ejectment suit, on the basis of the said deed of conveyance dated January 17, 2014. He further submitted that when on November 23, 2015 the P.W. 1, during his cross-examination by the defendant, was confronted with the said deed of conveyance dated January 17, 2014 and before the defendant-opposite party was re-examined to prove the said conveyance, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed their application for recall/ re-examination of P.W. 1 for explaining and clarifying certain facts concerning the said deed of conveyance dated January 17, 2014. Mr. Chatterjee strenuously urged that in the instant case, there is no lacuna of the plaintiffs-petitioners and the plaintiffs- petitioners did not file the application for recall/ re-examination of the P.W. 1 to fill up any lacuna as held by the learned Court below in the impugned order, more so, when the defendant opposite party was allowed to tender the said deed of conveyance dated January 17, 2014 as an exhibit in the suit without being backed up by any pleading in his written statement. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rammi vs. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1999 SC 3544 and a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Raghunath Biswas vs. Ravi Ram Chandra Jaladhar & Ors., reported in [2008(1)CLJ (Cal) 851], Mr. Chatterjee contended that it is well settled principle of law that whenever a party who called the witness feels that explanation is required for any matter referred to his cross-examination he has the liberty to put in question in reexamination to get his explanation. Mr. Chatterjee contended that it is well settled principle of law that whenever a party who called the witness feels that explanation is required for any matter referred to his cross-examination he has the liberty to put in question in reexamination to get his explanation. Mr. Chatterjee urged the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs to recall P.W. 1 to adduce evidence restricted to the property, being the subject matter of the said conveyance dated January 17, 2014 is vitiated by patent illegality and the same cannot be sustained. Mr. Das Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the defendant opposite party, however, did not dispute the fact that the plaintiffs petitioners filed the application for recalling of P.W. 1 to adduce evidence on November 26, 2015 and the learned Court below allowed the D.W. 1 to adduce further evidence on recall with regard to the said conveyance dated January 17, 2014. He only submitted that an application arising out of the ejectment suit between the parties, reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by an order dated April 21, 2015 the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that the ejectment suit pending before the learned Court below shall be disposed of by the end of December, 2015 and the plaintiffs petitioners have filed the application for recalling the P.W. 1 to adduce further evidence with the sole object to delay the conclusion of the ejectment suit within the time stipulated by his Hon’ble Supreme Court. I have considered the materials on record and the submissions of both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rammi vs. State of M.P. (supra) it is the well settled principle of law if the party who called the witness feels that explanation is required for any matter referred to in cross-examination, he has the liberty to put any question in re-examination to get the explanation. In the instant case, while passing the impugned order the learned Court below overlooked the fact that the plaintiffs-petitioners had filed their application for recalling of PW1 on November 26, 2015, that is, after the cross-examination of PW-1, when he was confronted with the said deed of conveyance dated January 17, 2014 for the first time and before the application of the defendant for his re-examination was taken up for hearing. Further, by the order dated November 27, 2015 the learned Court below allowed the application of the defendant to re-examine himself with regard to the said conveyance dated January 17, 2014 on the ground that the defendant’s petition is very much necessary to unearth the truth. Thus, learned Court below fell into an error to reject the application of the plaintiffs-petitioners on the ground that they were given opportunity to cross-examine D.W.-1 to demolish his case and to explain regarding the said deed of conveyance whatever they want to state by way of suggestion during his crossexamination. In the facts of the instant case as already discussed above, this could not be a ground to refuse the plaintiffs’ petitioners’ prayer to re-examine P.W.-1 to clarify certain facts the relating to the said deed of conveyance dated January 17, 2014. In the facts of the case, as already discussed the application of the plaintiffs-petitioners could not be held to be aimed to fill up any lacuna or not maintainable under Section 138 of the Evidence Act. For all the foregoing reasons, I am unable to uphold the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. Accordingly, the Order No. 85 dated November 30, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore, in Ejectment Suit No. 14 of 2012 stands set aside. The application of the plantiffs-petitioners for re-examination of P.W.-1 stands allowed. The plaintiffs-petitioners are directed to produce P.W.-1 before the learned Court below on the next date of hearing of the suit. With the above directions, C.O. 4293 of 2015 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Let photostat plain copies of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the parties upon usual undertaking.