ORDER : C.L. SONI, J. The respondent no. 1 has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 111 of 2008 against the present petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 4 seeking declaration that the power of attorney dated 12.09.2006 given to the petitioner-defendant no. 1 was cancelled as per the agreement dated 15.05.2007 and, therefore, the petitioner has got no right or authority to sell or transfer the suit land to defendant nos. 3 and 4. 2. It appears that in the suit, the witness summons was issued at the instance of the petitioner to examine one Shri. Chhanubha Gambhirsinh Gohil who was serving as Deputy Accountant in Stamp Division of Treasury Office, District: Bhavnagar. Shri. Chhanubha Gohil was examined on behalf of the petitioner and then was cross-examined on behalf of respondent no. 1-plaintiff. It appears that during his cross-examination, respondent no. 1 gave one application at exhibit 140 to call him later on with record of last three years to verify whether the licence of stamp vendor Shri. Vijaybhai Jagad was cancelled or not and if cancelled for what reasons and for what period such licence was cancelled and to postpone the cross-examination till such witness came with such record. The learned Judge rejected such application vide order dated 04.06.2010 It appears that, thereafter, the learned advocate for respondent no. 1 declared that there was no further cross-examination, learned advocates, for the other defendants also declared that they had also not to take cross-examination and there was no re-examination also. 3. It is after such declaration on behalf of respondent no. 1, respondent no. 1 made an application at exhibit 142 for recall of witness Chhanubha Gohil for his further cross-examination. Such application came to be allowed vide order dated 15.06.2010 which is under challenge in the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch appearing for the petitioner submitted that the reason for which recall of the witness was asked for was nonexistent as further cross examination wanted by respondent no. 1 was in the context of document at exhibit 139, the copy of which was already produced and learned advocate for respondent no. 1 was conscious when he made declaration that there was no further cross-examination required from his side as the said copy of document was with learned advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. 1 was in the context of document at exhibit 139, the copy of which was already produced and learned advocate for respondent no. 1 was conscious when he made declaration that there was no further cross-examination required from his side as the said copy of document was with learned advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. Buch submitted that it was after rejection of the application at exhibit 140 and after making declaration that there was no further cross of witness Chhanubha Gohil required for and on behalf of respondent no. 1, the application at exhibit 142 was given to fill in lacunae which was left when the said witness was cross-examined by and on behalf of respondent no. 1. Mr. Buch submitted that it is settled proposition of law that once an opportunity to examine the witness was availed, the recall of such witness is not permissible to fill in lacunae or omission in his evidence as it would seriously prejudice the right of the opposite party. Mr. Buch has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 410 . 5. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli appearing for respondent no. 1, on the other hand, submitted that there is no question of fill in lacunae or omission in the evidence of the witness Chhanubha Gohil but during his cross-examination, on account of the application given at exhibit 140, a request was made to postpone his cross-examination and after rejection of the said application though it was declared on behalf of respondent no. 1 that there was no further cross-examination of the said witness, however later on, when his further cross-examine was required in the context of the document at exhibit 139, the application at exhibit 142 was moved and since there was no cross-examination earlier taken in the context of the document at exhibit 139, the learned Judge has allowed the application at exhibit 142 by the impugned order which is in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested with the learned Judge and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 6. 6. The Court having heard learned advocates for both the sides finds that during the cross-examination of the witness Chhanubha Gohil on 04.06.2010 an application at exhibit 140 was made for production of the record from the office of the Treasury in connection with the licence issued to Vijaybhai Jagad as stamp vendor and in such application, it was requested to postpone further cross-examination of the witness Chhanubha Gohil. Such fact is found recorded even in the order made by the learned Judge on 04.06.2010 Though the application at exhibit 140 was rejected, however, the fact remains that the cross-examination was postponed on account of the application at exhibit 140 given by respondent no. 1. However, after rejection of the application at exhibit 140, learned advocate for respondent no. 1 made declaration that there was no further cross-examination from his side. It was after making such declaration, an application at exhibit 142 was given by respondent no. 1 stating that the witness Chhanubha Gohil had produced xerox copy of the document brought by him from the Treasury office at exhibit 139 and the copy of the document was not made available to respondent no. 1 and, therefore, to make available the copy of the document to the respondent no. 1 and for further cross-examination on such document the witness be recalled. Though the learned Judge in the impugned order has observed that at the time of cross-examination of witness Chhanubha Gohil no dispute was raised that the copy of the document at exhibit 139 was not made available to respondent no. 1 and such objection was required to be taken during his cross-examination, however, in order to see that full opportunity in the trial to examine the witness is given to the parties, if the witness is allowed to be further cross-examined in the context of the document at exhibit 139, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. On such reasoning, the impugned order is made permitting respondent no. 1 to cross-examine the said witness. The Court finds from the cross-examination of Chhanubha Gohil at page no. 68 that there appears to be no cross-examination taken on behalf of respondent no. 1 in the context of the document at exhibit 139. As stated above, while cross-examination was going on, it was postponed at the request made on behalf of respondent no. The Court finds from the cross-examination of Chhanubha Gohil at page no. 68 that there appears to be no cross-examination taken on behalf of respondent no. 1 in the context of the document at exhibit 139. As stated above, while cross-examination was going on, it was postponed at the request made on behalf of respondent no. 1 for the purpose of making the application at exhibit 140. It is required to note that after rejection of application at exhibit 140 if there was no declaration of not taking further cross-examination by the learned advocate for respondent no. 1, the cross-examination of the witness Chhanubha Gohil would have been further continued from the stage it was postponed on 04.06.2010 Therefore, the application is for taking further cross-examination from that very stage and that too in the context of the document at exhibit 139 in connection with which no cross-examination was ever taken. Thus, there is no question of filling any lacunae or omission in the evidence of the said witness Chhanubha Gohil. 7. In the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (supra), the question considered by the Hon'ble Supreme was Court whether a witness having been examined by way of affidavit evidence could be recalled for giving further evidence with regard to the facts not mentioned in the affidavit. In the context of such question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para-25, 28 to 30 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. 26. xxxx xxxx xxxx 27. xxxx xxxx xxxx 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. 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. 30. Of course, if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the trial court to permit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permission to the defendants to cross-examine the witness thereafter. There is nothing to indicate that such is the situation in the present case. 8. The Court, however, finds that in the facts of the present case, the above said judgment relied on by learned advocate Mr. Buch shall be of no help to the petitioner. What is further required to be taken note of is that after the application at exhibit 140 was rejected within six days only the application at exhibit 142 was made by the respondent no. 1 for recalling of the witness Chhanubha Gohil for his further cross-examination. If there is any intention on the part of respondent no. 1 who is the plaintiff to delay the proceedings of the suit, such application would not have been made within six days. Even apart from this, considering the fact that the cross-examination of witness Chhanubha Gohil was postponed for deciding the application at exhibit 140 and since further cross-examination is stated to be in the context of the document at exhibit 139, it does not appear that there is any attempt to fill in any lacunae or omission left in the cross-examination of the witness Chhanubha Gohil. The Court finds that the learned Judge in the facts of the case does not appear to have committed any illegality or irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction in making the impugned order. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order in exercise of the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 9. Before commencement of hearing, it was pointed out that the above referred Civil Application No. 8398 of 2017 was preferred by the petitioner to permit the petitioner to implead legal heirs of respondent no. 1. The papers of such application were called for. However, since the main petition is not being accepted, there is no need to decide the Civil Application. It is always open to the parties to make appropriate application before the Court below for the purpose for which the Civil Application is filed. The Civil Application is, therefore, disposed of accordingly.