Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a Professional Services Agreement dated 19th February 2013 between M/s. Levitate Mobile Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (LMT), the appellant, and M/s. Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), the respondent, for developing and managing a mobile application. After the app was launched, SCB instructed LMT to take it down, leading to a revenue-sharing dispute. LMT sent a legal notice on 15th April 2015 demanding Rs. 4,46,50,000 with interest, which SCB denied, resulting in the filing of Civil Suit (OS) No. 1705 of 2015 before the High Court of Delhi. Issues were framed on 16th November 2016, and the suit was renumbered as CS(Comm.) 169 of 2018. The evidence of Sunil Jasuja (PW-1) was completed on 9th May 2023. Thereafter, LMT filed IA No. 24359 of 2023 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to place on record additional documents (e-mails exchanged between the parties) and to recall PW-1 for further examination. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the documents were not new and that LMT had not been diligent. The Supreme Court, in appeal, examined the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC and held that the power to recall a witness is discretionary and should be exercised liberally to ensure a fair trial and effective adjudication. The Court noted that the e-mails sought to be produced were relevant to the issues and that PW-1 had not been cross-examined on those documents. The Court set aside the impugned order, allowed the application subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 as costs to the respondent, and directed the High Court to expedite the trial.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Recall of Witness - Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC - Additional Evidence - The appellant sought to recall PW-1 and place on record e-mails exchanged between parties to effectively cross-examine the witness - The High Court dismissed the application on the ground of delay and lack of diligence - The Supreme Court held that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is discretionary and should be exercised liberally to secure the ends of justice, especially when the documents sought to be produced are relevant and the witness has not been fully cross-examined on those aspects - The Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the application subject to payment of costs (Paras 1-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for recalling PW-1 and placing additional documents on record, and whether the appellate court should interfere with such discretionary order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and allowed IA No. 24359 of 2023 subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 as costs to the respondent. The Court directed the High Court to expedite the trial and complete it within six months.
Law Points
- Recall of witness
- additional evidence
- Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- fair trial
- effective adjudication
- liberal approach
- commercial suit
- procedural flexibility
