ORDER : 1. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC at KGF on I.A. Nos. 35 and 36 in O.S. No. 21/2010. A copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the trial Court has rejected I.A. No. 35 is filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to reopen the case and I.A. No. 36 is filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to recall PWs. 1 to 3 and subject them for cross-examination by advocate for legal representatives of defendant No. 1 by the counsel for legal representatives Nos. 1(c) to 1(f) of deceased-defendant no. 1. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 being plaintiffs before the trial Court filed suit against defendants in O.S. No. 21/2010 before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at KGF for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. They contended that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. The legal representatives Nos. 1(c) to 1(f) of deceased-defendant No. 1 are some of the children of Late K.M. Ramareddy, who was defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement on 18.06.2012 denying the plaint averments. He died on 26.01.2016. After the death of defendant No. 1, petitioners came on record as his legal representatives. They filed additional written statement. In the additional written statement, the legal representative 1(f) of deceased-defendant No. 1 contended that land bearing Item No. 32 of the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No. 112 measuring 08 acres 02 guntas is the self-acquired property of her father and he has executed a Will bequeathing 03 acres 05 guntas of land in her favour and thus, she is the absolute owner and in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Likewise, legal representatives (c), (d) and (e) of deceased- defendant No. 1 contended that land bearing Survey No. 8 which is Item No. 31 of the suit schedule property was also self-acquired property of their father Late K.M. Ramareddy and out of love and affection, he has executed a Will bequeathing 06 acres 31 guntas of land in their favour on 12.05.2015. It is also stated that their father died on 26.01.2016. It is also stated that their father died on 26.01.2016. After the death of their father, they have become the absolute owners of the property. Thus, they urged that plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the properties and prayed for dismissal of the suit. During the pendency of the suit proceeding, two applications were filed by counsel for legal representatives 1(c) to 1(f) of deceased-defendant No. 1, one to reopen the case and the other is to recall PWs. 1 to 3 and subject themselves to cross-examination by counsel for legal representatives of defendant No. 1. The trial Court has rejected both the applications. Hence, petitioners are before this Court. 3. Sri. S. Visweswariah, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is arbitrary, perverse and the same is passed without proper appreciation of reasons assigned in applications. He submitted that the trial Court has committed serious mistake in dismissing the applications on the ground that counsel for defendant No. 1 has fully cross-examined PWs. 1 to 3 on several days and the case was posted for defendants’ evidence. He further submitted that that the trial Court has erred in holding that the suit is of the year 2010, the question of recalling PWs. 1 to 3 does not arise. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that the trial Court has ignored the fact that the learned counsel appearing for legal representatives 1(c) to (f) of deceased-defendant No. 1 has not cross-examined PWs. 1 to 3 and only counsel for defendant No. 1 has cross-examined the witnesses and therefore, he submitted that the trial Court ought to have allowed the applications which were filed by petitioners. A further submission was made that the trial Court has not properly considered the fact that apart from adopting the written statement of deceased-defendant No. 1, they have filed additional written statement and have put forth certain specific defenses more particularly, with regard to the execution of the Will. Thus, they have right to cross examine PWs. 1 to 3. Lastly, he urged that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that in view of the dismissal of the applications, the petitioners have lost their valuable right of cross-examination of PWs. 1 to 3 and any amount of their evidence will not suffice to prove their case. Thus, they have right to cross examine PWs. 1 to 3. Lastly, he urged that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that in view of the dismissal of the applications, the petitioners have lost their valuable right of cross-examination of PWs. 1 to 3 and any amount of their evidence will not suffice to prove their case. Therefore, he sought to contend that the impugned order is highly unjust and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard Sri. S. Visweswaraiah, learned counsel for petitioners and perused the writ papers. 5. The sole question is whether the trial Court is justified in rejecting the applications. 6. A reference is invited to Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC, which reads as under:- “Court may recall and examine witness - The court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the court thinks fit.” Rule 17 empowers the Court to recall at any stage a witness who has been examined and cross-examined. The power can be exercised by the Court suo motu as also at the instance of a party. 7. As noted above, in the instant case, two applications are filed by counsel for legal representatives 1(c) to (f) of deceased-defendant No. 1 to re-open the case and to recall PWs. 1 to 3 and subject them for cross-examination. Bearing that in mind, let me see what grounds are urged in support of the said applications. In the affidavit, the legal representatives of deceased-defendant No. 1 - Smt. Padamamma has sworn to an affidavit. In the affidavit, it is stated that they are not well versed with the legal proceedings and due to their personal inconvenience and domestic problems, they could not instruct their advocate with regard to cross-examination of PWs. 1 to 3. It is stated that non-instruction on previous dates of hearing was purely bona-fide and not intentional. It is further stated that their advocate is ready to cross examine PWs. 1 to 3 on the next date of hearing without fail. If the applications are not allowed, they will be put to greater hardship. Plaintiff No. 4 has filed detailed objections to the said applications and plaintiff Nos. It is further stated that their advocate is ready to cross examine PWs. 1 to 3 on the next date of hearing without fail. If the applications are not allowed, they will be put to greater hardship. Plaintiff No. 4 has filed detailed objections to the said applications and plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 have adopted the objections filed by plaintiff No. 4. They sought for dismissal of the applications. As could be seen from the order passed by the trial Court, the Court has taken note of the suit record and has observed that counsel for legal representatives 1 (c) to (f) of deceased-defendant No. 1 cross-examined PW-1 on 4.2.2019, 11.4.2019 and 22.7.2019, likewise, PW-2 and PW-3 have been fully cross-examined by learned counsel for legal representatives of deceased-defendant No. 1 on 28.01.2019. The case was posted for defendants’ evidence. It is further noticed that counsel appearing for legal representatives of deceased-defendant No. 1 had moved similar application to recall PW-1 for cross-examination and the same was allowed on 28.01.2019 and thereafter, PW-1 has been fully cross-examined on 22.7.2019. The trial Court has given sufficient opportunities to cross examine the witnesses. Hence, it can be safely held that proper opportunities were given to cross examine the witnesses. Further, the grounds urged in support of the applications are that they could not instruct their advocate. Except stating that they could not instruct their advocate, it is not mentioned as to in what respect the further cross-examination of the witnesses was essential, and what are the essential questions that had not been put to the witnesses earlier. It is well settled law that an application for recalling of witness for cross-examination on the ground that the party could not instruct his counsel properly on the date of examination of the witnesses is not bona-fide ground to allow the applications. Hence, summoning of PWs. 1 to 3 for further cross-examination is unsustainable. The trial Court is justified in rejecting the application. 8. While arguing the matter, learned counsel for petitioners vehemently urged that apart from adopting the written statement filed by deceased-defendant No. 1, legal representatives of defendant No. 1 (c) to (f) have filed additional written statement. Hence, they have right to cross examine and therefore, he submitted that the trial Court ought to have allowed the applications. 8. While arguing the matter, learned counsel for petitioners vehemently urged that apart from adopting the written statement filed by deceased-defendant No. 1, legal representatives of defendant No. 1 (c) to (f) have filed additional written statement. Hence, they have right to cross examine and therefore, he submitted that the trial Court ought to have allowed the applications. I am afraid this submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Rule 17 of CPC confers no right to a party to recall a witness, but there is only the power of the Court, if the Court thinks fit to put certain questions, can recall. 9. The trial Court is justified in taking note of the relevant dates and the stages of the suits and has rightly come to the conclusion that the legal representatives of defendant No. 1 have not made out good ground to allow their applications. 10. The power of recalling witnesses by Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC is discretionary. The discretion is to be exercised with greatest care and only in the most peculiar circumstances. In my considered opinion, the trial Court has exercised its power in right perspective. 11. The result, therefore, is that there is no justification in interfering with the order made by the trial Court. I find no reasons to exercise the power of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.