Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, as plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondent in O.S.No.563/2010 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & C.J.M., Mysuru. The suit was later transferred to the Additional Small Causes Court, Mysuru, and renumbered as O.S.No.181/2014. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and closed his evidence. The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and the matter was posted for further evidence. At that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.13 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination, and I.A.No.15 seeking to produce additional documents. The trial court rejected both applications by order dated 08.08.2017, observing that the plaintiff had already closed his evidence and the defendant's evidence was in progress; the applications were filed belatedly without sufficient cause. The plaintiff challenged this order in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the record and found that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to produce documents and examine witnesses earlier. The court noted that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously and that the plaintiff's applications appeared to be an attempt to fill gaps in evidence. The High Court held that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is discretionary and cannot be used to reopen evidence at a belated stage without proper justification. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Recall of Witness - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC - Discretion of Court - The plaintiff sought to recall a witness after closing his evidence and during defendant's evidence, claiming inadvertence in not producing certain documents earlier. The trial court rejected the application as belated and lacking sufficient cause. The High Court held that the trial court's discretion was properly exercised and no interference was warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Inherent Power - Section 151 CPC - Abuse of Process - The court observed that allowing recall at a belated stage would cause prejudice to the defendant and amount to abuse of process of law. The inherent power under Section 151 cannot be used to fill gaps in evidence after closure. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall a witness for further cross-examination after the plaintiff had closed his evidence and the defendant's evidence was in progress.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 08.08.2017 rejecting I.A.No.13 and I.A.No.15.
Law Points
- Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
- recall of witness
- inherent power of court
- abuse of process
- delay in filing application
- discretion of trial court
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (04) 27
Writ Petition No.41411 of 2017 (GM-CPC)
Dr. H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Sri Datta Prasad for Sri P.N.Manmohan (for petitioner), Sri G.Manivannan (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the trial court's order rejecting applications to recall a witness and produce additional documents.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the trial court's order dated 08.08.2017 rejecting I.A.No.13 and I.A.No.15, and consequently allow those applications.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's applications to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination and to produce additional documents were rejected by the trial court.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Additional Small Causes Court, Mysuru) rejected I.A.No.13 and I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.181/2014 on 08.08.2017.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall a witness.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the trial court's discretionary order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the recall was necessary to produce certain documents inadvertently not produced earlier, and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.
Respondent opposed the applications as belated and an attempt to fill gaps in evidence after closure of plaintiff's evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall a witness is discretionary and cannot be exercised to allow a party to fill gaps in evidence after closure, especially when the application is filed belatedly without sufficient cause. The trial court's discretion, if exercised judiciously, should not be interfered with under Article 227.
Judgment Excerpts
The present petitioner as a plaintiff had instituted a suit in O.S.No.563/2010... for the relief of recovery of money.
The trial court rejected both applications by order dated 08.08.2017...
The power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is discretionary and cannot be used to reopen evidence at a belated stage without proper justification.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money in O.S.No.563/2010 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & C.J.M., Mysuru. The suit was transferred to the Additional Small Causes Court, Mysuru, and renumbered as O.S.No.181/2014. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and closed evidence. The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and the matter was posted for further evidence. The plaintiff then filed I.A.No.13 under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and I.A.No.15 for production of documents. The trial court rejected both applications on 08.08.2017. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 18 Rule 17, Section 151
- Constitution of India: Article 227
