JUDGMENT : Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’) has approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), assailing order dated 30.9.2020, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Shimla, in Case No.9-1 of 17/15, whereby application filed by defendant, under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, for recalling the witness, has been dismissed. 2. Present petition has been filed on the ground that, by passing the impugned order, the Court below, in fact, has decreed the suit by giving detailed finding on merit of the suit, instead it ought to have limited its finding to the merits of the application, and it has also ignored the fact that the documents sought to be put to plaintiff, by way of cross-examination, are very relevant for just adjudication of the case and such necessity warrants to take on record such documents and put the same to the plaintiff for the purpose of cross-examination, at any time, subject to provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. It has been contended that there is no delay in placing on record the documents, existence whereof came in the knowledge of defendant on 28.3.2019 and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that placing on record such documents was intentionally delayed or the same was a tactic for prolonging the trial. According to the defendant, the Sale Certificate, issued under Rule 90(15) qua Property No.245/4, as was required to be adduced, is a relevant document and the plaintiff is required to be confronted with the recitals of the same, but the Court below has completely ignored such necessity for just adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. Lastly, it has been contended that the document proposed to be placed on record in evidence is main document, having bearing on the claim of plaintiff, being Sale Certificate, and, therefore, it was required to be brought on record by the plaintiff but on failure of the plaintiff, the defendant intends to place and prove such document on record through cross-examination of plaintiff, but the trial Court has committed an irregularity by rejecting prayer of the defendant. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised even after closure of the evidence, at any stage, by recalling any witness, who had been examined, for complete and final adjudication of the case to advance the cause of justice. 4. Plaintiff has opposed the claim of the defendant on the ground that the defendant is adopting all techniques for prolonging adjudication and determination of the suit as the defendant has availed nine opportunities to conclude its evidence and, to further prolong the proceeding, at the time of final opportunity granted for arguments, has moved application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC just to reset the clock of the case back, despite the fact that on earlier occasion also right to file defence/ written statement on behalf of defendant was struck down by the Court on account of unexplained delay, and at that time on interference of this High Court three weeks additional time to file written statement was granted to the defendant on 31.3.2016 and now once again defendant is trying to invoke jurisdiction of this Court to prolong the matter. 5. It has also been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that document, proposed to be placed on record in evidence, is neither original document nor relevant for adjudication of the controversy involved in the present case and, therefore, for the reasons assigned by the trial Court, passing of the impugned order has been justified. 6. To substantiate the plea taken by the plaintiff, learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (Dead) through LRs v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410 ; and a decision of this High Court in Tilak Raj v. Rajinder Sood, (1026) ILR(HP) 1580. 7. It is settled law of the land that in exercise of power under Section 115 CPC, the High Court has limited power to interfere on the ground of illegality, irregularity or perversity committed by the Court below. An order can also be interfered to have been passed in excessive exercise of the jurisdiction or failure to exercise jurisdiction. 8. 7. It is settled law of the land that in exercise of power under Section 115 CPC, the High Court has limited power to interfere on the ground of illegality, irregularity or perversity committed by the Court below. An order can also be interfered to have been passed in excessive exercise of the jurisdiction or failure to exercise jurisdiction. 8. Perusal of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and judgments, referred supra, depict that main purpose of this Rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to evidence led by the parties, and that this provision is not intended to be used to fill up omission in evidence of the witness which has already been examined, as the power under Order 18 Rule 17 is discretionary and ought to be exercised with greatest care and only in exceptional circumstances as the Court ought not to recall a witness at the instance of party in order to fill up a lacuna in the evidence already adduced. 9. Undoubtedly, Court has discretion to recall a witness at any time in order to clarify any doubt for complete and final adjudication of the suit. In present case, in plaint, plaintiff has set up his claim of ownership on the basis of Sale Certificate dated 1.12.1989, with respect to Property No.264/4, known as Melrose, comprising Khasra Nos.808/580, 581/1 and 794/581/1 min. To substantiate the plea, the plaintiff has placed on record Deed of Conveyance issued under Rule 91(8), exhibited as Ex.PW-1/D, made on 1.12.1989 between President of India and the plaintiff, whereby Property No.264/4, referred supra, was sold to plaintiff and this Conveyance has been signed by Naib Tehsildar (Sales)-cum- Managing Officer, Shimla, whereas the document proposed to be placed on record, by the defendant, by putting it to the plaintiff in cross-examination, is photocopy of a document stated to be Certificate of Sale (Freehold Properties) under Rule 90(15), wherein it has been stated that Shri B.R. Singh was the highest bidder for acquiring the property mentioned in Schedule and was declared purchaser of the said property with effect from 16.2.1957. In this document, in Schedule, property has been identified as 245/4, Melrose Upper Kaithu, Shimla. This photocopy has several blank columns. In this document, in Schedule, property has been identified as 245/4, Melrose Upper Kaithu, Shimla. This photocopy has several blank columns. This Certificate of Sale does not appear to have been issued at any point of time but appears to be a rough work which may or may not have culminated into Certificate of Sale as the last line stating that the said document was given under Hand and Seal of some office is blank and also it does not contain details of office as well as signature, name and designation of the Officer certifying and issuing the Certificate. The property of the suit is Evacuee Property No.264/4, whereas property mentioned in Certificate of Sale proposed to be brought on record is 245/4. 10. Other documents proposed to be placed on record, are (i) copy of statement, dated 4.8.1986, stated to be made by the plaintiff in some proceedings before Manager (Sales) admitting to have acquired Property No.245/4 in open auction; and (ii) a copy of order passed by District Rent & Managing Officer, Ambala, dated 29.5.1959, in which B.R. Singh, Manorama Rattan Singh and Dulhano Mal have been shown to be owner. The property in reference in the above referred statement of plaintiff made before the Manager (Sales) on 4.8.1986 and Certificate issued by the District Rent & Managing Officer, Ambala pertains to the property identified as Melrose 245/4, which is not subject matter of the present suit. 11. Therefore, the documents and statement of the plaintiff sought to be placed on record by recalling the plaintiff for cross-examination to put these documents to him, are not relevant to the lis of the suit being not connected to the suit property in any manner and, therefore, finding returned by the trial Court that these documents are not relevant for the present case in no manner irregular, illegal or perverse. 12. Trial Court has found, and rightly so, that the documents proposed to be placed on record in evidence by putting the same to the plaintiff in his cross-examination after recalling him, are not relevant for adjudication of the present suit. Therefore, trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the defendant as these documents are not necessary for adjudication of the claim of the parties in the suit and, thus, there is no necessity to recall the plaintiff for cross-examination. 13. Therefore, trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the defendant as these documents are not necessary for adjudication of the claim of the parties in the suit and, thus, there is no necessity to recall the plaintiff for cross-examination. 13. As discussed supra, existence of the documents does not create any doubt with regard to evidence led by the parties and, therefore, conclusion of the trial Court is neither irregular nor illegal or perverse and, thus, does not warrant any interference and it is not a case of exercise of power beyond jurisdiction or failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Court. Therefore, application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC has been rightly rejected by the Court below, following the well established principle with respect to invocation of power by the Court under this provision. In view of the aforesaid, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.