Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pandharinath L. Bhandari, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 12 July 2018 passed by the Small Causes Court at Bandra, Mumbai, rejecting his application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The application sought to recall the plaintiff's witness and file seventeen additional documents in a pending eviction suit (L.E. Suit No. 63/81 of 2012) filed against the respondents. The suit was for eviction of the respondents on the ground that they were gratuitous licensees. The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 13 March 2018. While the defendant's witness was under cross-examination, the plaintiff filed the application on 12 July 2018, seeking to place additional documents on record and recall his witness. The trial court rejected the application, and the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court confirmed the order. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The High Court examined the scope of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, which allows the court to recall and examine a witness at any stage. The court held that this power is discretionary and cannot be used to fill gaps in evidence or to allow a party to adduce additional evidence after closure of its case. The court noted that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to produce the documents earlier, and the application was filed belatedly without showing that the documents were beyond the plaintiff's knowledge or diligence. The court also observed that the application was filed four months after the plaintiff's evidence was closed, and the documents were not shown to be relevant or necessary for the just decision of the case. The High Court found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Recall of Witness - Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Discretionary Power - The court held that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is discretionary and cannot be exercised to fill gaps in evidence or to allow a party to adduce additional evidence after closure of its case. The application was filed belatedly when the defendant's witness was under cross-examination, and the documents sought to be produced were not shown to be beyond the plaintiff's knowledge or diligence. (Paras 1-11) B) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Delay and Lack of Diligence - The court noted that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to produce the documents earlier and the application was filed after a delay of four months from closure of evidence. The trial court's rejection was upheld as no case for interference was made out. (Paras 5-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for recalling the plaintiff's witness and filing additional documents after the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. Order dated 12 July 2018 rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Recall of witness
- Additional evidence
- Discretionary power
- Filling lacunae
- Abuse of process
