The petition challenges an order by the Small Causes Court in Mumbai that allowed the Defendant's witness (DW1) to be recalled for re-examination, clarification, and explanation. The Plaintiffs argue this order will unduly delay a suit pending since 1986. The court found the recall unjustified and vague, concluding that the Small Causes Court's decision was flawed. The order was set aside, and the Small Causes Court was directed to expedite the case.

Case Background

1. Suit Details:

   • Suit Number: R.A.E. Suit No. 1966/6048 of 1986.
   • Plaintiffs' Request: Recovery of possession of a flat and garage at 'West Hill', Mumbai.
   • Evidence Timeline: Plaintiffs' evidence submitted in December 2013; cross-examination concluded on January 29, 2020.
   • Defendant's Delays: Delayed filing of affidavit of evidence, resulting in a 'no evidence order' on July 25, 2022, later recalled. Defendant's affidavit filed on September 7, 2022; cross-examination concluded on March 13, 2023.

2. Key Allegations by Petitioners:

   • Defendant's Delays: Defendant delayed final arguments by not filing evidence closure pursis and sought multiple adjournments.
   • Advocate Change: Defendant changed advocate on October 31, 2023.
   • Application for Recall: Filed eight months after the conclusion of cross-examination.

Arguments Presented

1. For Petitioners (Mr. Sakhardande):

   • Delay and Vague Application: The order allows delays in the long-pending suit. No specific purpose for recalling DW1 was disclosed.
   • Legal Precedent: Cited Supreme Court judgment (Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar) emphasizing restrictive use of Order 18 Rule 17.

2. For Respondents/Defendant (Mr. Naik):

   • Clarification Needed: Recall is for clarifying discrepancies and removing ambiguities.
   • Speculative Presumption: Assuming the recall is for filling gaps in evidence is speculative.
   • Time-Bound Schedule: Court can set a schedule to avoid delays.

Court's Consideration

1. Chronology of Events and Delay:

   • Concluded Cross-Examination: Cross-examination of DW1 concluded on March 13, 2023.
   • Delayed Application: Defendant filed the recall application on November 10, 2023, after 22 adjournments.

2. Application Details:

   • Vague Justifications: Reasons for recalling DW1 were vague and did not specify exact issues needing clarification.
   • Sections 137 and 138: The application under these sections did not justify the recall.

3. Relevant Legal Provisions:

   • Order 18 Rule 17 CPC: Intended for the Court to clarify its own doubts, not for filling omissions in evidence.
   • Case Law: Cited judgments support restrictive use of re-examination.

Conclusion

The Small Causes Court's order was set aside due to insufficient justification for recalling DW1 and undue delay in proceedings. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of the long-pending suit and directed the Small Causes Court to prioritize the case for a swift decision.

Outcome:

• The writ petition is allowed.
• The order dated April 3, 2024, is set aside.
• The Small Causes Court is directed to expedite the suit's resolution.
• No order as to costs.