Date of the Judgment: May 5, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 628
Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan, J.
Can a party recall a witness to fill lacunae in its case under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code? The Supreme Court recently addressed the scope and limitations of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) regarding the recalling of witnesses. The Court clarified that while the court has the power to recall witnesses for clarification, this power should not be used to allow parties to fill gaps in their evidence. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case arises from an order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on January 7, 2025, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 7264/2024. The High Court had rejected a petition filed by Shubhkaran Singh under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC. Shubhkaran Singh then filed a Review Petition No. 117/2025, which was also rejected on February 27, 2025. Shubhkaran Singh then challenged both orders before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 7, 2025 | High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejects Miscellaneous Petition No. 7264/2024 filed by Shubhkaran Singh under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. |
| February 27, 2025 | High Court rejects Review Petition No. 117/2025 filed by Shubhkaran Singh. |
| May 5, 2025 | Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petitions filed by Shubhkaran Singh. |
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which states:
“17. 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.”
The court also considered Section 165 of the Evidence Act, which empowers a judge to ask any question to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts.
Arguments
The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by each party. However, it can be inferred that the petitioner, Shubhkaran Singh, argued for the right to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, while the respondent likely argued against it.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue before the Court was to determine the scope and applicability of Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC concerning the recalling of witnesses.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Scope of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | The Court clarified that Order 18 Rule 17 provides the court with the power to recall witnesses for the proper conduct of a case, mainly to remove ambiguities or clarify statements. However, it should not be used to fill up lacunae in a party’s case. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Sultan Saleh Bin Omer v. Vijayachand Sirmal [A.I.R. 1966, A.P. 295.] | Andhra Pradesh High Court | The Court referred to observations in this case, which aligned with the view that the right to put questions or recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 is given to the Court, not the parties. |
| Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410 | Supreme Court of India | The Court emphasized that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC should be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases, not as a general rule. |
| K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 | Supreme Court of India | The Court reiterated that Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily for the court to clarify any issue or doubt and not to enable parties to recall witnesses for further examination or to introduce additional evidence. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated It |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s submission for recalling witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | The Court rejected the implicit submission, clarifying that Order 18 Rule 17 is meant for the court’s use to clarify issues, not for parties to fill gaps in their case. |
| Authority | Citation | How Viewed by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sultan Saleh Bin Omer v. Vijayachand Sirmal | [A.I.R. 1966, A.P. 295.] | The Court endorsed the view that the right to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 rests with the Court, not the parties. |
| Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate | (2009) 4 SCC 410 | The Court reiterated that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 should be used sparingly and not as a general rule. |
| K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy | (2011) 11 SCC 275 | The Court affirmed that Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily for the court to clarify issues and not for parties to introduce additional evidence. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity of the trial process and prevent parties from using Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to fill lacunae in their evidence. The Court emphasized that the power to recall witnesses should be exercised sparingly and only when it is necessary for the court to clarify any issue or doubt.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on preventing misuse of Order 18 Rule 17 | 40% |
| Importance of the Court’s role in clarifying issues | 30% |
| Need for a fair and efficient trial process | 30% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Consideration of Factual Aspects | 30% |
| Legal Considerations | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The court’s logical reasoning can be summarized as follows:
Court considers application to recall witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
↓
Court determines if the purpose is to clarify ambiguities or fill lacunae
↓
If to clarify ambiguities: Recall may be allowed (with court’s questions)
↓
If to fill lacunae: Recall is not allowed
↓
Application dismissed
The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be used sparingly and in appropriate cases, and not as a general rule. The Court also cautioned against the routine use of Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code, as it could defeat the purpose of expediting trials.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC is primarily for the court to clarify issues or doubts, not for parties to fill gaps in their evidence.
- ✓ The power to recall witnesses should be exercised sparingly and only when necessary for the court to clarify any issue or doubt.
- ✓ Courts should be cautious about allowing the routine use of Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code, as it could defeat the purpose of expediting trials.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the established legal position that Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC is primarily for the court to clarify issues and not for parties to introduce additional evidence or fill lacunae in their case. The Court reiterated the need for a cautious and sparing approach in exercising this power to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the trial process.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions, reaffirming that Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC is intended for the court to clarify issues and not for parties to fill gaps in their evidence. The judgment emphasizes the need for courts to exercise this power judiciously to ensure a fair and efficient trial process.