Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri P. Ramaprasad, was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 231/2019 pending before the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City. He filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents. After the plaintiff's side evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 7 under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to recall himself for further examination-in-chief and to produce additional documents. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to lead evidence and that the application was filed belatedly with an intent to fill gaps in his evidence. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court examined the scope of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and held that the power to recall witnesses is discretionary and cannot be exercised to allow a party to fill lacunae in evidence or to remedy its own negligence. The court noted that the plaintiff had not shown any sufficient cause for not producing the documents earlier. The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 18 Rule 17 - Reopening of Evidence - Power to recall witnesses is discretionary and cannot be exercised to fill gaps in evidence or to remedy the negligence of a party - The court must ensure that such power is not abused to protract the trial - Held that the trial court rightly rejected the application as the plaintiff sought to introduce new documents and evidence after closure of his side, which would cause prejudice to the defendants (Paras 10-15). B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 115 - Revision - Scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to jurisdictional errors - The High Court will not interfere with a discretionary order unless it is perverse or suffers from material irregularity - Held that the impugned order was neither perverse nor suffered from any jurisdictional error (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC seeking to recall the plaintiff for further examination-in-chief after the plaintiff's side evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, confirming the trial court's order rejecting I.A. No. 7. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
- Section 115 CPC
- Reopening of evidence
- Abuse of process of law
- Filling lacunae in evidence
