As per case facts, a landlord filed an eviction petition in 2020. The tenant claimed the landlord owned other shops, which the landlord denied. The tenant amended his written statement ... twice; after the first, he stated he would not recall witnesses. After the second amendment, the tenant alleged the landlord had vacated and rented out another shop. The landlord again denied ownership, producing a rent note for the alleged shop that showed he was not the owner. Key witnesses had already been cross-examined. The tenant then filed an application to recall and re-cross-examine these witnesses, which the Rent Controller dismissed. The tenant challenged this dismissal in a revision petition. The question arose whether the Rent Controller correctly dismissed the tenant's application for recalling witnesses for further cross-examination, especially considering the tenant's prior waiver and lack of concrete proof of the landlord's ownership of other shops. Finally, the High Court upheld the dismissal, concluding the application was for delay. It clarified that recalling witnesses under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is a judicial discretion, not a party's right, for court clarification, not to fill gaps or for dilatory tactics, noting the tenant's past waiver and unproven claims.