Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Channabasappa S/o Shivappa Hosamani, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Naragund, in O.S. No. 82/2016. The trial court had rejected the petitioner's application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to recall PW1 for further cross-examination and to reopen the evidence. The suit was for partition and separate possession filed by the respondents against the petitioner and others. The petitioner contended that during the cross-examination of PW1, certain documents were confronted but not marked, and that the witness had given evasive answers, necessitating further cross-examination. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness and that the application was filed belatedly after the case was posted for arguments. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, holding that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is discretionary and can be exercised only if sufficient cause is shown. The court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause and that the application appeared to be a dilatory tactic. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 18 Rule 17 - Recalling of Witnesses - Sufficient Cause - The court held that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall witnesses is discretionary and can be exercised only if the applicant demonstrates sufficient cause and that the evidence sought to be adduced is essential for just decision of the case. The petitioner failed to show any such cause, and the application was filed belatedly after the case was posted for arguments. (Paras 6-8) B) Civil Procedure Code - Section 151 - Inherent Powers - The inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to circumvent the specific provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. The court cannot allow reopening of evidence merely to fill up lacunae or to delay the proceedings. (Para 7) C) Civil Procedure Code - Order 18 Rule 17 - Scope - The provision is meant for clarifications and not for re-examination on new matters. The trial court rightly rejected the application as the petitioner sought to introduce new facts through the proposed additional cross-examination. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to recall PW1 for further cross-examination and to reopen the evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Recalling of witnesses
- Sufficient cause
- Reopening of evidence
- Power of court to recall witnesses
- Scope of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
