Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Siddappa and Lokanna, filed a suit for possession against the respondent in O.S.No.154/2016 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, alleging encroachment on their property. The suit proceeded to trial: written statement was filed, issues were framed, evidence was led by both parties, witnesses were cross-examined, and the matter was posted for judgment. On 22.07.2024, the trial court allowed an application filed by the respondent/defendant to recall the defendant for further cross-examination, purportedly under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioners challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. 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 noted that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only when there is a justifiable cause, such as a mistake or omission that could not be rectified earlier. In the present case, the trial court had already reserved judgment after full trial, and the application to recall the defendant was filed without any new material or justifiable reason. The High Court held that allowing such reopening would defeat the finality of proceedings and amount to an abuse of process of court. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 and directed the trial court to proceed to pronounce judgment in the suit within three months.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Reopening of Evidence - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC - Recall of Witness - The trial court allowed an application to recall the defendant for further cross-examination after the suit was posted for judgment, without any justifiable cause or new material. The High Court held that such reopening is not permissible as it would amount to an abuse of process of court and defeat the finality of proceedings. (Paras 3-5) B) Civil Procedure - Power to Recall Witness - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC - Scope - The power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be exercised sparingly and only when there is a justifiable cause, such as a mistake or omission that could not be rectified earlier. Mere desire to further cross-examine is not sufficient. (Paras 4-5) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - The High Court can interfere with an order of a subordinate court if it is perverse, without jurisdiction, or suffers from a patent error of law. The impugned order reopening evidence after judgment was reserved was quashed as it was without jurisdiction and an abuse of process. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing an application to recall the defendant for further cross-examination after the suit had been posted for judgment, and whether such an order is sustainable under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol in O.S.No.154/2016, and directed the trial court to proceed to pronounce judgment in the suit within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Reopening of evidence after judgment reserved
- Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
- power to recall witnesses
- abuse of process of court
- finality of proceedings
