ORDER : T. MADHAVI DEVI, J. Both these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders of the Principal District Judge, Khammam, dated 06.08.2025 in I.A.No.5 of 2025 and I.A.No.6 of 2025 in O.S.No.165 of 2017. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in the Suit filed for recovery of money. The written statement was filed on 06.04.2018. The petitioner filed I.A.No.5 of 2025 under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to issue summons to the witnesses mentioned in the list to secure their attendance and examination and I.A.No.6 of 2025 is filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., to recall the DW1 for further evidence with reference to the Compact Disk (CD) submitted by the defendant and to pass such other order or orders. Both the applications were dismissed by the trial Court vide separate orders dated 06.08.2025 and the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the same. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the Suit are that the plaintiff claimed that he and the defendant were well acquainted with each other and out of such acquaintance, the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.12.2014 at Khammam, with a promise to repay the said sum with interest @ 24% per annum and executed a promissory note to this effect and that the defendant failed to pay the principal amount and also interest thereon and therefore, a suit was filed for a total amount of Rs.34,29,333/-. The defendant, in her written statement denied the averments in the plaint and stated that the defendant had never borrowed the alleged sum of Rs.20 Lakhs on 18.12.2014 and had also denied execution of the alleged promissory note. In the written statement, the details of other transactions with the plaintiff are also recited. 4. In I.A.No.5 of 2025, the petitioner has stated that there was a conversation between the plaintiff and his daughter- in-law with the husband of the petitioner and that the said conversation is being submitted in the form of an audio CD along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT . Further, the petitioner also wanted to file certain documents and mark them as evidence and for the said purpose, she submitted that the plaintiff and his daughter-in-law are required to be summoned as witnesses. 5. Further, the petitioner also wanted to file certain documents and mark them as evidence and for the said purpose, she submitted that the plaintiff and his daughter-in-law are required to be summoned as witnesses. 5. The I.A.No.6 of 2025 was filed seeking recall of DW1 for further evidence with reference to the CD, which was already received by the Court and kept in record. The CD allegedly contains the conversation between the plaintiff, his daughter-in-law and the husband of the petitioner. 6. The trial Court, vide separate orders dated 06.08.2025, has observed that the plaintiff side evidence was closed long back and that thereafter, DWs1 to 5 were examined on behalf of the petitioner/defendant and these applications are filed to summon the proposed witnesses to give their evidence at this juncture and it was also observed that the husband of the petitioner/defendant was examined as DW2 and in his cross examination, he categorically admitted that the suit transaction has nothing to do with the transaction between himself, son and daughter-in-law of the plaintiff and that the petitioner also admitted her signature on the suit promissory note and there is no whisper in the written statement filed by the defendant about the recording of any conversation and converting the same into CD and therefore, on the ground that in the absence of pleading, any amount of oral or documentary evidence cannot be looked into and cannot be taken into consideration, both I.A.No.5 of 2025 and I.A.No.6 of 2025 were dismissed and the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the said applications. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shubhkaran Singh Vs. Abhayraj Singh and Others in Special Leave Petition to Appeal (c) Nos.12012-12013/2025 and Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and Another , (2008) 17 SCC 491 , in support of her contentions. 10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitions are filed under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., and Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., respectively. Order 16 Rule 1 of C.P.C., reads as under: 1. 10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitions are filed under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., and Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., respectively. Order 16 Rule 1 of C.P.C., reads as under: 1. List of witnesses and summons to witnesses.— (1) On or before such date as the Court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court. (2) A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. (3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), summonses referred to in this rule may be obtained by the parties on an application to the Court or to such officer as may be appointed by the Court in this behalf [within five days of presenting the list of witnesses under sub-rule (1).] Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C., reads as under: 17. 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. 11. A literal reading of the above provisions shows that a person whose name is not mentioned in the list of witnesses, may be summoned or recalled if the party seeking the said relief shows sufficient cause for the same. The petitioner is seeking summoning of a witness without satisfying the above conditions, i.e., showing sufficient cause for omitting to mention the name of such witness in the list of witnesses. The petitioner is seeking summoning of a witness without satisfying the above conditions, i.e., showing sufficient cause for omitting to mention the name of such witness in the list of witnesses. Further, the suit is filed for recovery of money under promissory note dated 18.12.2024, the suit was filed in 2017, the written statement was filed in 2018, while these petitions are filed in 2025 after the evidence of the plaintiff and also the evidence of DW1 to DW5 has been recorded. The conversations in the subject CD relate prior to the date of promissory note, but there is no reference, leave alone, a whisper about the same in the written statement. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shubhkaran Singh (cited supra) has observed as under: Para.10: We are of the opinion that if circumstances warrant, an opportunity to a party to re-call a witness for examining, cross- examining or re- examining can be granted by a Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C. Para.11: This Court in the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar Vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, reported at (2009) 4 SCC 410 more particularly para 28 held as under: “28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and reexamination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.” 13. In the case of Bachhaj Nahar (cited supra) it was held as under: Para.15. The relevant principle relating to circumstances in which the deficiency in, or absence of, pleadings could be ignored, was stated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Shri Chandramaul, reported in AIR 1966 SC 735 (Air p.738, para10): “10. … If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication, and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. But where the substantial matter relating to the title of both parties to the suit was touched, though indirectly or even obscurely in the issues, and evidence has been led about them then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every case. What the Court has to consider in dealing with such an objection is: did the parties know that the matter in question was involved in the trial, and did they lead evidence about it? If it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different matter. To allow one party to rely upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence and has had no opportunity to lead evidence, would introduce considerations of prejudice, and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do injustice to another." Para.16: The principle was reiterated by this Court in Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by LRs., Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1242 : (SCC pp.562-63, para 6) “6. …It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. The pleadings however should receive a liberal construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the court to ascertain the substance if the pleadings to determine the question. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the court to ascertain the substance if the pleadings to determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be considered. Whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of pleadings, instead the court must find out whether in substance the parties knew the case and the issues upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that in spite of deficiency in the pleadings, parties knew the case and they proceeded to trial on those issues by producing evidence, in that event it would not be open to a party to raise the question of absence of pleadings in appeal." 14. For applying the above rationale to the facts of the case on hand, it is observed that there are no special circumstances warranting exercise of the power under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C., to recall and examine any witness for giving evidence. It is an admitted and undisputed rule position that in the absence of pleadings, the witness cannot be summoned to give evidence and the additional evidence cannot be accepted. In these two applications, the entire case is that the petitioner has recorded the conversation of the plaintiff and his daughter-in- law with the husband of the petitioner and therefore, it is necessary evidence. The trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case for holding that in the absence of pleadings, the witnesses cannot be summoned or evidence cannot be accepted. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same and the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 15. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Civil Revision Petitions, shall stand closed.