Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Parameters On Recall Of Witness : Supreme Court Explains
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 4) reiterated that the power of the Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC only permits recall of witnesses for examination by the Court itself, not for cross-examination by either of the parties
“…the scope and object of Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC, was to enable the court to clarify doubts regarding evidence led by the party. It was further stated that the provision was not meant to fill up the omissions in the already adduced evidence. It was held that the power to recall a witness who has been examined earlier cannot be exercised for further examination-in-chief or for adducing additional material or evidence, for, such nature of power was available under Order XVIII Rule 17A, CPC, which has been since deleted.”, observed a bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria.
The Court summed up the position on Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC in the following terms:
"1 The parameters for invocation and use of Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC, are thus well-established. It is not meant for a routine exercise. Nor it is a provision which can be employed on mere asking by a party, unless the court wants any clarification on any aspect of the evidence already led in the proceedings. Though the provision could be invoked at the instance of a party to the suit, basically and essentially it is the discretionary power to be exercised by the court itself. This provision can be put into play neither by the party nor by the court itself to permit to fill up the gaps, omissions or lacunae in the evidence.
2 It is not permissible that the evidence by a party already led and settled is allowed to be improved by reopening the evidence or recalling the witness under this Order of CPC. The provision is not a tool whereby a party can embellish the evidence, fill in the omissions therein or refine the evidence at a later stage.
3 Also, it is no valid yardstick to be employed for permitting reopening the evidence or allowing recalling of a witness that such a course would not prejudice any party. It is no valid ground for invoking the powers under Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC that a party to the proceedings will not be prejudiced. Not the absence of prejudice but an independent justification must exist before the court can legitimately take resort to Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC.
4 In Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (supra), the appellants sought to introduce the evidence by recalling of witnesses which were available at the time the affidavit of such witnesses were prepared. Neither new evidence was introduced nor new facts were discovered subsequently. The court stated that it was not a case for recalling of the witnesses."
Background
The bench was hearing an appeal filed against the Telangana High Court's order which in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction had refused to interfere and modified the trial court's decision under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to re-open the PW-1 evidence, and permit his cross-examination at the fag end of the suit.
The High Court modified the trial court's decision to the extent that it directed the trial court to complete the entire exercise of recalling and reopening the evidence of PW-1 and marking of the said documents within a period of ten (10) days, and further directed to complete the cross- examination of PW-1 within one week.
Against this order of the High Court, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
Decision
Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Anjaria observed that the High Court fell in error in exceeding its jurisdiction to allow re-opening of the PW-1 evidence, ignoring the law that the provision can't be utilised for filling in the lacuna in the evidence, but to only seek a clarification for the better adjudication of the suit.
“…it was not permissible in law for the court to exercise the powers under Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC permitting the plaintiffs to recall their witnesses and reopen the evidence. The directions passed by the High Court per se did not fell within the purview and parameters of exercisable powers under Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC.”, the Court observed.
In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.
Cause Title: K. BHARATHAMMA VERSUS BANDARU SAKKU BAI AND OTHERS
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 764
Click here to download judgment
Appearance:
Mr. C. Mukund, Adv. Mr. Bijoy Kumar Jain, AoR for the appellant
Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AoR for the respondents.