Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are defendants in a partition suit, filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) challenging the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mudhol, in O.S. No. 89/2012. The trial court had rejected the petitioners' application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC seeking to reopen the evidence and recall the plaintiffs for further cross-examination. The suit was filed by the respondents for partition and separate possession of suit properties. The trial commenced, and the plaintiffs' evidence was closed on 20.12.2017. On the same day, the petitioners filed the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, contending that certain documents were not confronted to the plaintiffs during cross-examination and that further cross-examination was necessary to elicit the truth. The trial court rejected the application, observing that the petitioners had ample opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs and that the application was filed only to fill the lacunae in their evidence. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is discretionary and cannot be exercised to allow a party to fill gaps in evidence. The court found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court's order and dismissed the revision petition, confirming the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Reopening of Evidence - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC - Scope - The court has discretion to recall witnesses at any stage, but such power cannot be exercised to fill gaps in evidence or to allow a party to adduce additional evidence after closure of evidence - Held that the trial court rightly rejected the application as the petitioners sought to fill lacunae in their evidence (Paras 8-10).
B) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 CPC - Interference with discretionary order - The revisional court will not interfere with a discretionary order unless it is shown to be perverse, capricious, or without jurisdiction - Held that the trial court's order was neither illegal nor improper (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to reopen the evidence and recall the plaintiffs for further cross-examination.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, confirming the trial court's order dated 20.12.2017 rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.
Law Points
- Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
- Section 115 CPC
- Reopening of evidence
- Power of court to recall witnesses
- Scope of revision
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (02) 47
Basappa, Smt. Mahalingavva, Praveen
Smt. Kamala, Smt. Mamata, Neeta, Sangeeta, Girish, Ishwar, Baburao, Suvarna, Mangala, Mayavva, Tangevva, Kumar Lakkappa, Kareppa, Mareppa, Bheerappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petition against order rejecting application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the trial court order dated 20.12.2017 and allow their application to reopen evidence and recall plaintiffs for cross-examination.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed that certain documents were not confronted to plaintiffs during cross-examination and further cross-examination was necessary.
Previous Decisions
Trial court rejected the application on 20.12.2017, observing that petitioners had ample opportunity to cross-examine and that the application was filed to fill lacunae.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC seeking to reopen evidence and recall plaintiffs for cross-examination.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that certain documents were not confronted to plaintiffs during cross-examination and that further cross-examination was necessary to elicit the truth.
Respondents opposed the application, stating that the petitioners had ample opportunity to cross-examine and that the application was filed only to fill lacunae in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
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 evidence. The revisional court will not interfere with a discretionary order unless it is shown to be perverse, capricious, or without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
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 evidence.
The revisional court will not interfere with a discretionary order unless it is shown to be perverse, capricious, or without jurisdiction.
Procedural History
The respondents filed O.S. No. 89/2012 for partition and separate possession. The trial commenced, and plaintiffs' evidence was closed on 20.12.2017. On the same day, petitioners filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to reopen evidence and recall plaintiffs. The trial court rejected the application on 20.12.2017. Petitioners filed C.R.P. No. 100080/2018 before the High Court challenging the order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 18 Rule 17, Section 115
