JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing as amicus curiae in this case. I have also heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Whether a party can be permitted to file additional evidence-in-chief of a witness who has been partly cross-examined, is the core question arising for consideration of this court in the present proceeding. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as follows :- The petitioners are the defendants in Title Suit No. 59/2007 pending before the Munsiff Court, North Salmara, Abhayapuri. The petitioners have contested the suit by filing their written statements. After the closure of evidence of the plaintiffs’ side, the defendants had submitted the examination-in chief on affidavit of two witnesses, i.e. DWs-1 and 2. Thereafter, the DW-1 was partly cross-examined on 12-03-2014 and the matter was fixed again on 23-04-2014 for further cross examination of the DW-1. On the next date fixed, i.e. 23-04-2014, there was a change of counsel appearing for the defendants and the newly engaged counsel had prayed for time to prepare for cross examination of the DW-1. The prayer was allowed by the learned trial Court by imposing a cost of Rs. 1500/- and the matter was fixed on 28-05-2014 for further cross examination of DWs. On 28-05-2014, the defendants had filed an affidavit of additional evidence-in-chief of the DW-1 along with a petition No. 713/2014 praying for accepting the same. The prayer was, however, objected to by the respondents/plaintiffs. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned Munsiff had passed the impugned order dated 30-07-2014, rejecting the prayer made by the defendants. The operative part of the order dated 30-07-2014 is reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “30/7/14 Both the sides are being represented by the Ld. Counsels. Defendant side on 28/05/2014 submitted additional affidavit of DW-1 and prayed to accept the same vide petition No. 713/14. Ld. Counsel of plaintiff submitted written objection. Ld. Counsel of plaintiff further submitted that the suit is pending for cross examination of DWs & DW-1 is already partly cross-examined and hence in such circumstances the additional evidence U/O 18, Rule 4 of the CPC is permissible & moreover also against the order of Indian Evidence Act. I have agreed with the submission forwarded by the Ld. Counsel of the plaintiff. I have agreed with the submission forwarded by the Ld. Counsel of the plaintiff. And accordingly prayer of the petitioner stands rejected and the additional affidavit submitted bennsusted from the C/R.” The order dated 30-07-2014 passed by the learned Munsiff has been put to challenge in the present proceeding. 3. Addressing the Court on the legal issue formulated in this case, Mr. Mazumdar submits that there is no provision in the CPC which permits a party to a civil suit to submit additional evidence-in-chief after the commencement of the cross-examination of the witnesses. The learned Amicus Curiae, however, submits that under Section 151 of the CPC, the Court has the inherent powers to allow such additional evidence to be brought on record for ends of justice if the facts and circumstances of the case so justifies. It is also the submission of the learned Amicus Curie that if, in the form of additional evidence-in-chief, the witness is seeking to introduce any documentary evidence, than such a prayer can be allowed by the court subject to fulfillment of the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 and also Order 7 Rule 14 CPC or Order 6 Rule 1A of the CPC, depending on whether the prayer is made by the plaintiff’s side or the defendant’s side. In support of his above arguments, Mr. Mazumdar has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 , to contend that even in the absence of any specific provision in the code enabling the parties to re-open evidence or seek leave of the court to adduce further evidence, there is nothing in the Code that would limit the jurisdiction of the court under Section 151 of the CPC to grant such a relief. 4. Mr. Mazumdar has further argued that while receiving evidence, the Court is required to make a distinction between appealable and non-appealable cases as well as such cases where a party may have to resort to summons under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC for securing the attendance of a witness. In support of his above argument, Mr. Mazumdar has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ameer Trading Corpn. Ltd Vs. In support of his above argument, Mr. Mazumdar has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ameer Trading Corpn. Ltd Vs. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. reported in (2004) 1 SCC 702 and in the case of B.V. Ramana Reddy & others Vs. Ceylon and India General Mission Church Hindupur and others reported in 2014 0 Supreme (AP) 952. 5. Assailing the impugned order dated 30-07-2014, Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while rejecting the prayer made by the defendants, the learned Munsiff has not recorded proper reasons and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on such count alone. Mr. Dey has further argued that the original document was not in the custody of his client on the date of submission of the examination-in-chief of the DWs, as a result of which, the same could not be exhibited by the defendants’ witnesses. He submits that owing to a mistake committed by the engaged counsel, there was delay in filing the petition No. 713/14. Contending that the Court has sufficient power to permit a litigant to make amend for the mistake committed by the counsel, Mr. Dey submits that in the absence of any legal bar, the learned Court below was not justified in rejecting the prayer made by the petitioners on the ground stated in the petition. In support of his above argument, Mr. Dey has placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court dated 10-08-2012 rendered in connection with CRP 144/2011 (The Central Training Institute and another Vs. National Boards Employees Union and another). 6. Mr. Hoque, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has argued that the Sale Deed sought to be exhibited by the defendants was available on record since the month of May, 2010 which fact was well within the knowledge of the defendants. Notwithstanding the same, the additional evidence-in-chief was filed by the defendants only in the year 2014 i.e. after a lapse of more than 4 years, thereby establishing the fact that the defendants were negligent in pursuing their remedies. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the application to adduce additional evidence-in-chief had been filed by the defendants only to cure the lacunae in their case, that too in a manner which is impermissible in the eye of law. According to Mr. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the application to adduce additional evidence-in-chief had been filed by the defendants only to cure the lacunae in their case, that too in a manner which is impermissible in the eye of law. According to Mr. Hoque, allowing the prayer made by the petitioners/ defendants, at this stage, would cause serious prejudice to the interest of his clients and hence, this petition be dismissed with cost. In support of his above arguments, Mr. Hoque has relied upon two decisions – (i) Vinayak M. Dessai Vs. Ulhas N. Naik and others rendered by the High Court of Bombay at Goa and a decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in (ii) Polyflor Limited Vs. Sh. A.N. Goenka and Others rendered by the Delhi High Court in connection with CS(OS) 504/2004. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curie and the counsel for the contesting parties and have also meticulously gone through the materials available on record. 8. The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was amended in the year 2002. The amended provision of Order 18 Rule 4 CPC provides that the examination-in-chief of a witness in every case shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls the witness. As per Rule 3-A of Order 18, when a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear before other witnesses on his behalf has been examined, unless the court permits him to appear at a later stage. Insofar as the other witnesses are concerned, Order 18 CPC is silent as to the order in which such witnesses are to be examined. 9. By the special amendment Act No. 4 of 2016 carried out w.e.f. 23-10-2015, Sub-Rule 1 of Order 18 Rule 4 CPC was inserted which provides that affidavit of evidence of all the witnesses, whose evidence is proposed to be led by a party, shall be filed simultaneously by that party at the time directed in the first Case Management Hearing. The applicability of Sub-Rule 1 has, however, been kept confined only to the suits relating to commercial disputes of a specified value. The applicability of Sub-Rule 1 has, however, been kept confined only to the suits relating to commercial disputes of a specified value. As per the Code, the amended provision of Sub-Rule 1 of Order 18 Rule 4 CPC would not have any bearing in a suit tried by a civil court where no commercial dispute is involved. 10. Section 138 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down the order of examination of a witness. As per Section 138, the witness shall be first examined-in-chief, cross-examined and then re-examined. Going by the language employed in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it is clear that every witness is to be examined-in-chief, cross-examined and re-examined (if desired by the party) before the next witness is called upon. It would, however, be significant to note here-in that Section 138 relates to the position that existed prior to the amendments carried out in Order 18 Rule 4 CPC when the examination-in-chief of the witnesses used to be recorded orally by calling the witness in the witness box. However, after the amendment of Order 18 Rule 4 CPC making it mandatory to file the evidence of all witnesses on affidavit, the procedure of recording the examination-in-chief has undergone significant changes. What would, however, be important to note here-in is that after the 2002 amendment of the CPC, there has been no corresponding change to Section 138 of the Evidence Act. 11. Case Management Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2007) framed by the Gauhati High Court lays down the procedure to be followed with regard to Case Flow Management in the subordinate courts, both for dealing with Original Suits and First Appeals. In paragraph 6 of the said Rules pertaining to original suits contained in Appendix-26, it has been mentioned that if the parties are not keen on settlement through the procedure of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), the court shall frame issues and proceed with examination of witnesses. The rules further provide that filing of examination-in-chief and cross-examination or re-examination of the witness will continue one after the other. The relevant portion of para 6 of the Rules of 2007 is reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “6. ……………………………………………………………………………….. If the parties are not keen about settlement, the Court shall frame the issues and direct the plaintiff to start examining his witnesses. The relevant portion of para 6 of the Rules of 2007 is reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “6. ……………………………………………………………………………….. If the parties are not keen about settlement, the Court shall frame the issues and direct the plaintiff to start examining his witnesses. The procedure of each witness filing his examination-in-chief and being examined in cross or re-examination will continue, one after the other. After completion of evidence on the plaintiffs side, the defendants shall lead evidence likewise, witness after witness, the chief-examination of each witness being by affidavit and the witness being them cross-examined or re-examined. The parties shall keep the affidavit in chief-examination ready whenever the witness examination is taken up. As far as possible, evidence must be taken up day by day as stated in clause (a) of proviso to Rule 2 of Order XVII. The parties shall also indicate the likely duration for the evidence to be completed, and for the arguments to be thereafter heard. The Judge shall ascertain the availability of time of the Court and will list the matter for trial on a date when the trial can go on from day to day and conclude the evidence. The possibility of further negotiation and settlement should be kept open and if such a settlement takes place, it should be open to the parties to more the registry for getting the matter listed at an earlier date for disposal.” 12. In the case of K.K. Velusamy (Supra) it has been held that even if 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, there is nothing in the code that would limit or otherwise effect the inherent power of the Court to make such order, as may be necessary, for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. However, in the said decision, it has also been held that the inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC must rarely be invoked only in appropriate cases and subject to its limitations. However, in the said decision, it has also been held that the inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC must rarely be invoked only in appropriate cases and subject to its limitations. The decision in the case of K.K. Velusamy (Supra), was rendered by the Apex Court while dealing with a situation where the learned Trial Court had dismissed an application filed by the defendant’s side for re-opening the evidence and to permit further cross examination of PWs 1 and 2, with reference to certain admissions which were recorded as electronic evidence. The revision petition filed against the order of dismissal of the said prayer having been rejected by the High Court, the order was put to challenge before the Supreme Court by filing an SLP. The question that arose for decision of the Supreme Court was as to whether, the power conferred under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall any witness can be exercised by the Court to re-open the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross examination. While emphasizing that the power under Section 151 of the CPC will have to be used with circumspection and care and only when it is absolutely necessary and where there is no provision in the code covering the matter and when the bonafide of the applicant cannot be doubted and when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The Supreme Court has made the following observations in paragraphs 13 and 14 of K.K. Velusamy (Supra), which are quoted herein below : “13. The Code earlier had a specific provision in Order 18 Rule 17A for production of evidence not previously known or the evidence which could not be produced despite due diligence. It enabled the court to permit a party to produce any evidence even at a late stage, after the conclusion of his evidence if he satisfied the court that even after the exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within his knowledge and could not be produced by him when he was leading the evidence. That provision was deleted with effect from 1.7.2002. The deletion of the said provision does not mean that no evidence can be received at all, after a party closes his evidence. That provision was deleted with effect from 1.7.2002. The deletion of the said provision does not mean that no evidence can be received at all, after a party closes his evidence. It only means that the amended structure of the Code found no need for such a provision, as the amended Code contemplated little or no time gap between completion of evidence and commencement and conclusion of arguments. Another reason for its deletion was the misuse thereof by the parties to prolong the proceedings under the pretext of discovery of new evidence. 14. The amended provisions of the Code contemplate and expect a trial court to hear the arguments immediately after the completion of evidence and then proceed to judgment. Therefore, it was unnecessary to have an express provision for re-opening the evidence to examine a fresh witness or for recalling any witness for further examination. But if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a party comes across some evidence which he could not lay his hands earlier, or some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes into existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power under section 151 of the Code, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice, subject to such terms as the court may deem fit to impose.” 13. Again, in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India reported in (2003) 1 SCC 49 , while dealing with the question as to whether Order 18 Rule 4(2) gives power to the Court to decide as to whether evidence of an witness shall be taken either by the Court or by the Commissioner, the following observations were made by the Supreme Court which would be relevant in this case and is, therefore, quoted herein below:- “19. Order 18 Rule 4(2) gives the court the power to decide as to whether evidence of a witness shall be taken either by the court or by the Commissioner. An apprehension was raised to the effect that the court has no discretion and once it decides that the evidence will be recorded by the Commissioner then evidence of other witnesses cannot be recorded in court. An apprehension was raised to the effect that the court has no discretion and once it decides that the evidence will be recorded by the Commissioner then evidence of other witnesses cannot be recorded in court. We do not think that is the correct interpretation of sub-rule 4(2). Under the said sub-rule, the court has the power to direct either all the evidence being recorded in court or all the evidence being recorded by the Commissioner or the evidence being recorded partly by the Commissioner and partly by the court. For example, if the plaintiff wants to examine 10 witnesses, then the court may direct that in respect of five witnesses evidence will be recorded by the Commissioner while in the case of other five witnesses evidence will be recorded in court. In this connection, we may refer to Order 18 Rule 4(3), which provides that the evidence may be recorded either in writing or mechanically in the presence of the Judge or the Commissioner. The use of the word 'mechanically' indicates that the evidence can be recorded even with the help of the electronic media, audio or audio-visual, and in fact whenever the evidence is recorded by the Commissioner it will be advisable that there should be simultaneously at least an audio recording of the statement of the witnesses so as to obviate any controversy at a later stage.” 14. The observations made by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision goes to show that the power of the court under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC is of wide amplitude and there is nothing in the Code preventing the court from allowing a party to adduce additional evidence even after some of his witnesses have been cross examined. Even otherwise, subject to the limitations prescribed in this regard, the court in exercise of its inherent power available under Section 151 CPC, can pass such orders as may be necessary for securing the ends of justice. 15. The Rules of 2007 appear to be in consonance with the scheme of Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in so far as the order of examination of the witnesses are concerned. 15. The Rules of 2007 appear to be in consonance with the scheme of Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in so far as the order of examination of the witnesses are concerned. It is to be noted here-in that the Rules of 2007 have been framed by the Gauhati High Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 225 of the Constitution of India read with Part-X of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 6 of the Assam High Court Order, 1948 and therefore, the said Rules would have the force of a statute. A plane reading of the Rules of 2007 leaves no room for doubt that subject to the provision of Rule 3-A of Order 18 CPC, examination-in-chief of a witness would be permissible after the commencement of cross– examination of other witnesses examined by the same party. Therefore, until such time the relevant provisions of the Code and/ or the rules are amended, it must be held that a party to a civil suit would be entitled to bring on record the examination-in-chief on affidavit of a witness after the previous witness has been cross-examined or re-examined, as the case may be. In other words, the relevant provision of the Code read with Rules of 2007 does not create any bar restraining the court from permitting examination-in-chief of a witness to be brought on record merely on the ground that other witness(es) called by the party has/ have already been wholly or partly cross-examined. Going by the same analogy, it must, also be held that there cannot be any absolute bar in allowing a witness to lead further evidence-in-chief even after the commencement of his cross-examination, if the circumstances of the case justify so. Whether or not such a prayer to lead additional evidence-in-chief of a witness, who has been subjected to cross-examination, should be allowed by the court would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 16. There could also be a situation where a party to a suit may make a prayer to lead additional evidence of a witness who has already been cross examined following an order of the court allowing amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial. 16. There could also be a situation where a party to a suit may make a prayer to lead additional evidence of a witness who has already been cross examined following an order of the court allowing amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial. Likewise, in cases where summons under Order 16 CPC are taken out for securing the attendance of a witness, it may become necessary to record the examine-in-chief of the witness after cross-examination of other witnesses called by the same party is completed. Therefore, no inflexible rule of general application in the matter of examination or cross-examination of witness can be laid down. Depending upon the circumstances of the case, the court would have the discretionary power to permit a witness to be examined at any stage if the same is deemed necessary for ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of court. However, while exercising such discretionary power, the court will have to act with care and circumspection and must arrive at a satisfaction that the fact or the documentary evidence sought to be introduce by the witness is per se not inadmissible as evidence and that the prayer meets the requirement of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC or Order 6 Rule 1A of the CPC, as the case may be. 17. For the reasons stated above, the question of law formulated here-in-before is answered in the affirmative. It must, however, be borne in mind that after a witness has been subjected to cross-examination either wholly or in part, a prayer to adduce further evidence-in-chief by the said witness shall not ordinarily be entertained unless the court is of the view that allowing such a prayer would be necessary for the ends of justice or for preventing abuse of the process of court. There could be a case where, a prayer for adducing additional evidence is made at a belated stage after discovery of new and important facts previously not known to the witness or upon recovery of an important document previously not in the custody of that party. In such cases, it would be incumbent upon the court to first examine as to whether the prayer has been made bonafide and whether, the party making the application was prevented from bringing such evidence on record due to circumstances beyond his control or for any other sufficient reason. In such cases, it would be incumbent upon the court to first examine as to whether the prayer has been made bonafide and whether, the party making the application was prevented from bringing such evidence on record due to circumstances beyond his control or for any other sufficient reason. It would also be the duty of the court to examine as to whether prejudice would be caused to the other side if the prayer is allowed. However, if it is found that the sole purpose of making the prayer is to cure a lacunae in the evidence already lead by that party or it is aimed at retracting from an admission of fact made earlier or the sole objective is to delay the trial of the suit, such a prayer would be liable to be rejected. 18. In the present case, a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 30-07-2014 goes to show that the prayer for adducing additional evidence had been rejected on the sole ground that the witnesses have been partly cross-examined. No other ground for rejection of the prayer finds mention in the impugned order dated 30-07-2014.There is also no discussion in the said order as to why the prayer made by the defendants cannot be accepted on merit. As such, I am of the considered opinion that while passing the impugned order dated 30-07-2014, the learned Munsiff has erred in exercise of jurisdiction vested by the law which calls for correction by this court. The impugned order is, therefore, held to be un-sustainable in law. 19. Having held as above, it would be significant to mention here-in that although the defendants/ petitioners are seeking to introduce a new document by adducing additional evidence, it is not in dispute that the leave of the court, as required under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC has not been sought, on that behalf. In the absence of leave granted by the court under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC, the document in question cannot be received in evidence by the court. Therefore, the question of permitting the defendants to adduce the documentary evidence, without obtaining prior leave of the court, cannot arise in the eye of law. In other words, the question of allowing the prayer for adducing additional evidence in this case would be maintainable only if leave, under Order VIII Rule 1-A, is granted by the court. Therefore, the question of permitting the defendants to adduce the documentary evidence, without obtaining prior leave of the court, cannot arise in the eye of law. In other words, the question of allowing the prayer for adducing additional evidence in this case would be maintainable only if leave, under Order VIII Rule 1-A, is granted by the court. Therefore, the petition No. 713/2014 filed by the petitioners, in the opinion of this court, was pre-mature on such count. 20. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this revision petition is being disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate application seeking leave under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC, if so advised, by furnishing proper justification. If such an application is filed within two weeks from today, the same may be considered by the learned trial court on merit and disposed of by a speaking order. Subject to the out-come of the said process, it will be open to the petitioners to avail all such remedy as may be permissible under the law, including filing of fresh application seeking leave to adduce additional evidence. Facilitating the above, the impugned order dated 30-07-2014 stands set-aside. Parties to appear before the learned trial court on 27-06-2019 and produce a certified copy of this order. With the above observation, revision petition stands disposed of. There would be no order as to costs. Before parting with the record, this Court would like to put on record appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Dilip Mazumder, learned amicus curiae who has gracefully declined any remuneration for the services rendered. Send back the LCR.