ORDER : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment dated 03.11.2017 passed by the trial court dismissing an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter plaintiff). 2. A perusal of the judgment indicates that the plaintiff had moved an application under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for summoning of two witnesses Kishore Singh and Sheela. The said application was allowed and the said witnesses appeared. However they did not support the plaintiff's case albeit the plaintiff had opportunity to cross-examine them. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC before the trial court to recall the said witness. The trial court has dismissed the said application holding that the plaintiff cannot use the said provision for filling up the lacunae which he might find in his evidence in the suit laid by him. It was for the plaintiff at the relevant time to re-examine his witnesses and therefore the said application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was liable to be dismissed. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it was only subsequent to the examination of Kishore Singh and Sheela as PW-3 and PW-4 that he came in the possession of the certain documents. He submitted that therefore in the interest of justice the trial court ought to have exercised its power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall the two witnesses for further examination. 3. I there for find no force in the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff that the provision under Order 18 Rule 17 can be invoked to fill up the lacunae in his evidence or to bring on record additional evidence. 4. I am of the considered view that the trial court has not exercised his discretion capriciously or perversely in dismissing the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for recalling of the two witnesses as sought by the petitioner-plaintiff. 5. The petition is accordingly dismissed.