"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. The Court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the Court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the Application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. If the Application is allowed and the evidence is permitted and ultimately the Court finds that evidence was not genuine or relevant and did not warrant the reopening of the case recalling the witnesses, it can be made a ground for awarding exemplary costs apart from ordering prosecution if it involves fabrication https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of evidence. If the party had an opportunity to produce such evidence earlier but did not do so or if
