ORDER: Defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the suit filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order, dated 10.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.39 of 2022 in O.S.No.52 of 2009 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler. 2. Respondent herein being the plaintiff filed O.S.No.52 of 2009 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler, to declare that plaintiff has got right and title over 3/4th share in ‘A’ schedule properties and half share in ‘B’ schedule properties and to partition and deliver possession of the same etc. 3. In the plaint, plaintiff contended inter alia that she is wife of the deceased and defendant No.1 in the suit is mother of deceased Subramanyam Achari; that ‘A’ schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of Subramanyam Achari and his son Nagendra; that both are having half share; that Nagendra, died intestate, unmarried, on 18.05.1994 leaving behind him the plaintiff as sole legal heir; that plaintiff succeeded to his half share in ‘A’ schedule properties; that Subramanyam Achari, husband of the plaintiff died intestate on 24.07.1996 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in the suit as his legal heirs; thus, plaintiff got 3/4th share in ‘A’ schedule property and that defendant No.1 is entitled for remaining 1/4th share of ‘A’ schedule properties; that ‘B’ schedule properties are self acquired properties of deceased Subramanyam Achari and hence, both defendant No.1 and plaintiff are entitled to half share; that defendant No.1 got issued legal notice claiming entire property and denied share to the respondent/plaintiff under Will, dated 28.02.1992 said to have been executed by deceased Subramanyam Achari; that Subramanyam Achari filed O.P.No.17 of 1989 and obtained ex parte decree of divorce behind the back of the plaintiff; that plaintiff initiated steps to get the decree set aside and the same is pending; that item No.1 of ‘B’ schedule property is in the custody of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and item No.2 is in the custody of defendant No.4; that defendant No.1 is trying to claim the entire amounts lying with other defendants. Hence, suit was filed. 4. The suit is contested by defendant No.1 by filing written statement. Hence, suit was filed. 4. The suit is contested by defendant No.1 by filing written statement. It was contended inter alia that Subramanyam Achari during his life time executed registered Will on 28.02.1992 bequeathing the properties to defendant No.1 (life interest) and thereafter vested the same in favour of G. Sreenivasulu; that Subramanyam Achari filed OP No.17 of 1989 for divorce and since plaintiff did not contest the same, ex parte decree was passed on 21.09.1992; that plaintiff filed I.A.No.849 of 1994 to set aside the ex parte decree and later it was transferred to Piler and it was renumbered as I.A.No.408 of 1996; that since plaintiff did not prosecute, it was dismissed on 23.08.1996; that after long lapse of time, after the death of Subramanyam Achari, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.171 of 1997 to condone delay in filing petition to set aside the dismissal order passed in I.A.No.408 of 1996 and eventually prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 5. With the above pleadings, the parties went to trial. Pending the suit, the revision petitioners impleaded themselves as defendant Nos.5 and 6 by filing I.A.No.385 of 2017. Later they filed additional written statement. Pending the suit defendant No.1 died on 14.12.2018. I.A.No.64 of 2019 was filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 to recognize them as legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 and the same was allowed on 22.04.2019. 6. Defendant No.6 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination on 21.07.2017. He was cross-examined and eventually evidence was closed on 23.11.2021. After completion of arguments on behalf of plaintiff on 06.12.2021, the matter underwent three to four adjournments for defendants’ arguments. As per the record, court below also imposed conditions. At that point of time, defendant Nos. 5 and 6 filed (1) I.A.No.35 of 2022 under Order VIII Rule 1(A) and Section 151 of CPC to receive documents (2) I.A.No. 36 of 2022 under Order 18 Rule 17 and Sec 151 CPC to recall D.W.1, (3) I.A.No. 37 of 2022 under Section 151 CPC to reopen defendants evidence, (4) I.A.No. 38 of 2022 under Sec 151 CPC to receive Additional Chief Examination and (5) I.A.No. 39 of 2022 under Order 18 Rule 17 to recall P.W.1. 7. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No. 39 of 2022, it was contended inter alia that defendant No.1 executed registered gift deed, dated 03.08.2008 and registered Will dated 19.04.2006 in favour of the petitioners and that defendant No.1 died on 14.12.2018; that after the death of defendant No.1, petitioners were added as defendant Nos.5 and 6; that PW1 was partly cross-examined and the matter was posted to 08.12.2015 for further cross-examination of PW1; that defendant No.1 being old could not attend the Court and she was called absent; that as there was no representation on her behalf, cross-examination of PW1 was treated as nil; that several points to be cross-examined are not put to PW1 and hence, I.A.No.39 of 2022 was filed to recall PW1 for further cross-examination. 8. Respondent/plaintiff filed counter and opposed the application. It was contended inter alia that petitioners themselves filed I.A.No.385 of 2017 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC and came on record as defendant Nos.5 and 6; that they filed separate written statement; that defendant No.6 was examined as DW1 before the death of defendant No.1 and in fact he filed chief affidavit in lieu of examination on 21.07.2017; that his cross-examination was completed and the evidence was closed on 23.11.2021; that arguments on behalf of the plaintiff were closed on 06.12.2021; that at request of learned counsel for the defendants, the matter was posted for arguments to 03.01.2022, thereafter to 21.01.2022, 31.01.2022 and 07.02.2022; that on 07.02.2022, there was no representation and hence, the matter was adjourned to 18.02.2022 with a conditional order; that at that point of time, the present application is filed to recall PW1; that no reason was explained; that the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings and prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. The trial Court by order, dated 10.03.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, revision is filed. 10. On the same day, separate orders were passed in I.A.Nos.35 and 39 of 2022 and common order was passed in I.A.Nos.36 to 38 of 2022. 11. Heard both sides. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that petitioners being legal representatives of defendant No.1 came to know that suit was posted to 08.12.2015 for further crossexamination of PW1 and as on that date, defendant Nos.5 and 6 were not parties to the suit. 11. Heard both sides. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that petitioners being legal representatives of defendant No.1 came to know that suit was posted to 08.12.2015 for further crossexamination of PW1 and as on that date, defendant Nos.5 and 6 were not parties to the suit. He would also further contend that there were several points to be cross-examined on their behalf which were not asked to PW1 by defendant No.1. He would also contend that the petitioners assigned proper reasons. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the order of the trial Court would contend that to drag on the proceedings only, the above application is filed. Petitioners in fact made wrong statement on oath. Petitioners filed the application in the lower Court without arraying other defendants to the suit as parties and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision. 14. In the light of above contentions the point that arises for consideration is: Whether, the order passed by lower court in dismissing interlocutory application to recall PW1 is sustainable? 15. The suit in O.S.No.52 of 2009 was filed by the plaintiff for declaration and partition. Pending the suit, defendant Nos.5 and 6 impleaded themselves as party defendants to the suit by filing I.A.No.385 of 2017 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. They also filed additional written statement long back. 16. A perusal of the record would indicate that after examination of PW1 in chief, the suit was adjourned for crossexamination of PW1 for several adjournments and eventually the same was closed. After closing of evidence of PW1, an application was filed recalling PW1 for cross-examination and the same was allowed on 13.07.2015 and the matter was posted to 24.07.2015 on costs of Rs.200/-. After adjourning the matter from time to time, PW1 was cross-examined in part on 13.09.2015. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 15.09.2015 and to 08.12.2015. Since there was no representation on the said day, PW1’s further cross-examination was treated as nil. Subsequently petitioners came on record and the entire trial was completed. They came on record as D5 and D6 in the year, 2017 and prosecuted the case. After completion of defendants’ evidence and plaintiff’s arguments, the matter underwent adjournments for defendants’ arguments. The suit was adjourned for defendant arguments to 03.01.2022. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 21.01.2022, 31.01.2022, 07.02.2022 and to 18.02.2022. They came on record as D5 and D6 in the year, 2017 and prosecuted the case. After completion of defendants’ evidence and plaintiff’s arguments, the matter underwent adjournments for defendants’ arguments. The suit was adjourned for defendant arguments to 03.01.2022. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 21.01.2022, 31.01.2022, 07.02.2022 and to 18.02.2022. At that point of time, application was filed. 17. In Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar (Dead) through L.Rs. v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, 2009 (4) SCC 410 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: 25. In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of witnesses, the main purpose of the said Rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify and doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. 26. As indicated by the learned Single Judge, the evidence now being sought to be introduced by recalling the witness in question, as available at the time when the affidavit of evidence of the witness was prepared and affirmed. It is not as if certain new facts have been discovered subsequently which were not within the knowledge of the applicant when the, affidavit evidence was prepared. 31. Some of the principles akin to Order 47 C.P.C. may be applied when a party makes an application under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C., but it is ultimately within the Court's discretion, if it deems fit, to allow such an application. In the present appeal, no such case has been made out. 18. In K.K. Veluswamy v. N. Palaniswamy, 2011 (11) SCC 275 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: 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 18 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 Dadiraj Nagappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate). 14. .............. 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 on 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 term as the Court may deem fit to impose. 19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the Court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the Court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the Court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. (emphasis is mine) 19. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. (emphasis is mine) 19. From the above expressions, it is clear that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 cannot be used routinely and such power can be used if the Court is satisfied that the reasons explained for non-production of the same earlier, are valid and sufficient. The Court can exercise its discretion to recall a witness, but at the same time it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. 20. In the present case, petitioners filed separate written statement long back after coming on record. But no steps were taken to recall PW1 if really P.W.1 was not cross examined on all aspects. As observed supra, the defendants’ evidence was closed on 23.11.2021. Plaintiff’s arguments were completed on 06.12.2021. After the suit has undergone four adjournments for defendants’ arguments, petitioners filed the present application. 21. Petitioners have not assigned any reasons for not filing recall petition since 2018 and filing the same after lapse of four years that too when the suit is coming up for arguments of defendants on condition. It is also not the case of the petitioners that new facts came to light subsequently which were not within their knowledge by the time of closure of their evidence. 22. Further, the conduct of the defendants in not arguing the matter though the matter underwent four adjournments shows that the present application is filed only to drag on the proceedings. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court time and again cautioned that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. However, the Courts must see the reasons assigned for not filing such application earlier and as also the conduct of the party. As observed supra, the conduct of the petitioners in this case is at large. Petitioners intend to drag the suit by filing number of interlocutory applications without advancing arguments. 24. Apart from that as observed by the trial Court, the defendants did not choose to array the other defendants as party respondents to the petition. On that ground also the application is not maintainable. 25. Petitioners intend to drag the suit by filing number of interlocutory applications without advancing arguments. 24. Apart from that as observed by the trial Court, the defendants did not choose to array the other defendants as party respondents to the petition. On that ground also the application is not maintainable. 25. In view of the above discussion, in the considered opinion of the Court, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality, which warrants interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this revision is liable to be dismissed. 26. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.