JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. This is an appeal under section 13 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter ‘OPID Act’) filed by the appellants challenging the impugned order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court (OPID Act), Cuttack in Interim Application No.03 of 2016 in rejecting the petition dated 27.12.2016 filed by the appellants to recall P.W.1 Bibhuti Bhusan Das for cross-examination. 2. It appears that the appellants are the opp. parties in the Interim Application No. 03 of 2016 in which State of Odisha represented through Additional District Magistrate-cum- Competent Authority, Cuttack is the applicant/petitioner. On 17.12.2016 P.W.1 Bibhuti Bhusan Das was present in the Designated Court to give his evidence on behalf of the applicant/petitioner State of Orissa and since the appellants could not take any steps at that point of time, they were set exparte. P.W.1 was examined in chief and some exhibits were also marked on behalf of the applicant and the case was adjourned to another date for hearing. Subsequently at a later stage on the same day, the advocate for the appellants filed appearance memo and a petition to set aside the ex-parte order and to permit the appellants to cross examine P.W.1. It is stated in the petition that on the relevant date i.e. on 17.12.2016 due to traffic jam in the National High way in between Bhubaneswar to Cuttack, the counsel for the appellants appeared in Court at about 12.15 p.m. Another petition was filed by the appellants on 27.12.2016 to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination. 3. The petition dated 17.12.2016 was taken up for orders on 18.01.2017 and the ex-parte order was set aside. 4. The petition dated 27.12.2016 filed by the appellants was taken up for orders on 21.03.2017. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that non-cross-examination of P.W.1 was neither deliberate nor intentional and since ad-interim order of attachment has been passed by the State Government, irreparable loss would be caused if opportunity of cross-examination of P.W.1 is not provided to the appellants. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that non-cross-examination of P.W.1 was neither deliberate nor intentional and since ad-interim order of attachment has been passed by the State Government, irreparable loss would be caused if opportunity of cross-examination of P.W.1 is not provided to the appellants. The learned Designated Court held that the power to recall a witness is vested under order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C., which is discretionary and should be sparingly used in appropriate cases to enable the Court to clarify any doubt it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties and not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness, who has already been examined as was held in the case of Bairagi Moharana & another Vs. The Collector reported in 2014 (Supp.-II) Orissa Law Reviews 839 and accordingly, rejected the petition filed by the appellants. 5. Mr. Shib Shankar Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is no dearth of power with the Court to recall a witness in exercise of the inherent power under 151 of C.P.C. for cross-examination in the interest of justice and without appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and the consequences likely to follow in the event of non-recall of P.W.1, the petition was rejected in a mechanical manner. It is further contended that the appellants will suffer immense prejudice in the event they are not afforded chance of cross-examination of P.W.1. 6. Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the power of the Court to recall a witness cannot be routinely invoked and it is discretionary in nature. It is further contended that when due to the negligent attitude of the appellants, the learned Designated Court thought it not proper to exercise its discretion to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or perversity in the impugned order and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. 7. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, there is no dispute that the P.W.1 Bhubuti Bhusan Das is a relevant witness examined on behalf of the Applicant and he has been examined in chief but not cross examined at all. 8. 7. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, there is no dispute that the P.W.1 Bhubuti Bhusan Das is a relevant witness examined on behalf of the Applicant and he has been examined in chief but not cross examined at all. 8. A right to cross examine a witness, apart from being a natural right is a statutory right. It is to test the veracity of the witness and to arrive at truth. Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination of a witness. Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act which deals with the order of the examinations confers a valuable right of cross-examining the witness tendered in evidence by the other side. The scope of that provision is enlarged by section 146 of the Evidence Act by allowing a witness to be questioned on different aspects as mentioned under that section. 9. Law is well settled that the right of defence takes in, within its canvass, all aspects including the demolition of the plaintiff's case by the cross-examination of his witnesses, it would be equally correct to say that the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses really constitutes a finishing touch which completes the plaintiff's case. It is a well established proposition that no oral testimony can be considered satisfactory or valid unless it is tested by cross-examination. The mere statement of the plaintiffs witnesses cannot constitute the plaintiff's evidence in the case unless and until it is tested by cross-examination. The right of the defence to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses can, therefore, be looked upon not as a part of its own strategy of defence but rather as a requirement without which the plaintiff's evidence cannot be acted upon. (Ref:- Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 162). 10. In case of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 , it is held as follows:- “9. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code enables the Court, at any stage of a suit, to recall any witness who has been examined (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) and put such questions to him as it thinks fit. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code enables the Court, at any stage of a suit, to recall any witness who has been examined (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) and put such questions to him as it thinks fit. The power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit requesting the Court to exercise the said power. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the Court to clarify any doubts it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. [Vide Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar Vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, 2009 (4) SCC 410 ]. 10. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily a provision enabling the Court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo moto, or at the request of any party, so that the Court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions. 11. There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to re-open the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross-examination. Section 151 of the Code provides that nothing in the Court shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Code to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Section 151 of the Code provides that nothing in the Court shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Code to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In the absence of any provision providing for reopening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for purposes other than securing clarification required by the Court, the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to re-open the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination. This inherent power of the Court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the Court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the Court to put such question to elicit any clarifications. 12. The Respondent contended that Section 151 cannot be used for re-opening evidence or for recalling witnesses. We are not able to accept the said submission as an absolute proposition. We however agree that section 151 of the Code cannot be routinely invoked for reopening evidence or recalling witnesses.” 11. Therefore, the inherent power under section 151 of C.P.C. can be exercised by the Court suo motu and also at the instance of either party to recall a witness. Whether a prayer to recall a witness would be accepted or not would depend on facts and circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula can be laid down for such purpose. The Court by invoking the inherent power can recall a witness and allow cross-examination of such witness at any stage of a suit by the other side. The recall application has to be dealt with carefully and not in a mechanical and casual manner and it cannot be dismissed without assigning cogent reasons. The judicial discretion of the Court should be aimed in giving full opportunities to the parties to present their case. The recall application has to be dealt with carefully and not in a mechanical and casual manner and it cannot be dismissed without assigning cogent reasons. The judicial discretion of the Court should be aimed in giving full opportunities to the parties to present their case. If an application is filed by any of the parties assigning good and genuine reasons to recall a witness for cross-examination and showing as to why the witness could not be cross-examined on the date fixed or to put some relevant questions which have been inadvertently left out during cross-examination, the Court should apply its mind to the averments taken in such application and decide as to whether the application has been filed just to linger the case or it has some genuine grounds. If the Court feels that such an application is a bonafide one and recall of the witness for the purpose mentioned in the application is necessary in the interest of justice, the Court should exercise its judicial discretion to allow such petition otherwise there will be perversity of justice. 12. In my humble view, when the petition to set aside the ex-parte order was filed on the very day when such order was passed and the learned Designated Court set aside the exparte order, non-allowing the petition filed for recall of P.W.1 for cross-examination which was filed on same grounds is not proper and justified. The learned Designated Court has not considered its power under section 151 of C.P.C. but only considered the provision under Order XVIII Rule 17. The factual aspects of the decision relied upon by the learned Designated Court is different inasmuch as it was a case of recall of the plaintiff further cross-examination who has been cross-examined at length and discharged. In Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 reported in (2012) 10 SCC 1 , it is held as follows:- “70. Each case entails a different set of facts and a decision is a precedent on its own facts; not everything said by a Judge while giving a judgment can be ascribed precedential value. The essence of a decision that binds the parties to the case is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and cull out from it, the ratio decidendi. The essence of a decision that binds the parties to the case is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and cull out from it, the ratio decidendi. In the matter of applying precedents, the erudite Justice Benjamin Cardozo in The Nature of a Judicial Process, had said that "if the judge is to pronounce it wisely, some principles of selection there must be to guide him along all the potential judgments that compete for recognition" and "almost invariably his first step is to examine and compare them;" "it is a process of search, comparison and little more" and ought not to be akin to matching "the colors of the case at hand against the colors of many sample cases" because in that case "the man who had the best card index of the cases would also be the wisest judge". Warning against comparing precedents with matching colours of one case with another, he summarized the process, in case the colours don't match, in the following wise words: “It is when the colors do not match, when the references in the index fail, when there is no decisive precedent, that the serious business of the Judge begins. He must then fashion law for the litigants before him. In fashioning it for them, he will be fashioning it for others. The classic statement is Bacon's: "For many times, the things deduced to judgment may be meum and tuum, when the reason and consequence thereof may trench to point of estate. The sentence of today will make the right and wrong of tomorrow.” 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is hereby set aside. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the State shall instruct P.W.1 Bibhuti Bhusan Swain to appear before the Designated Court on 8th December, 2017 which has been agreed upon by both the parties and on that day, the Designated Court shall permit the appellants to cross-examine the witness. It is made clear that no adjournment shall be granted to the counsel for the appellants to cross-examine the witness. 15. With the aforesaid observation, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 16. It is made clear that no adjournment shall be granted to the counsel for the appellants to cross-examine the witness. 15. With the aforesaid observation, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 16. A free copy of the judgment be handed over to the learned counsel for the State.