Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are defendants in a partition suit (O.S. No. 67/2013) pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the Trial Court. By that order, the Trial Court rejected the petitioners' application (I.A. No. 1) filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to recall PW1 (the plaintiff's witness) for further cross-examination and to reopen the evidence. The background of the case is that the suit is for partition and separate possession of joint family properties. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) examined PW1 and the evidence was closed on 18.12.2019. The case was posted for arguments on 20.01.2020. On that date, the petitioners filed the application for recall, contending that certain documents were not confronted to PW1 and that further cross-examination was necessary. The Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that the petitioners had ample opportunity to cross-examine PW1 earlier, that the application was filed belatedly, and that allowing it would cause unnecessary delay. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, held that the Trial Court's order was just and proper. The Court noted that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly to secure the ends of justice, not to enable a party to fill gaps in evidence or to delay the proceedings. The petitioners failed to show any sufficient cause for recalling the witness. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Recall of Witnesses - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC - Sufficient Cause - The petitioner sought to recall PW1 for further cross-examination after the evidence was closed and the case was posted for arguments. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness earlier and that the application was filed belatedly with an intent to delay the proceedings. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC must be exercised sparingly and only to secure the ends of justice, not to fill gaps in evidence or to delay the trial. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Abuse of Process - Section 151 CPC - Inherent Powers - The Court observed that allowing the application would amount to an abuse of the process of the court, as the petitioner had already cross-examined the witness and the application was filed after a long delay without any satisfactory explanation. The inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to circumvent the specific provisions of the Code or to grant relief that is otherwise not permissible. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 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 dated 20.01.2020. The Court held that the Trial Court's order was just and proper and that the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for recalling the witness.
Law Points
- Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- recall of witnesses
- reopening of evidence
- sufficient cause
- abuse of process of court
