Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed in 2010 seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction over certain properties. The appellant, defendant No. 1, claimed ownership through registered sale deeds of 1987 and an earlier perpetual injunction decree obtained against the plaintiffs. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed residence since 1970, but during interlocutory proceedings they admitted that no house existed on the suit property after structures collapsed in 2016. After completion of evidence and while final arguments were nearly concluded, the plaintiffs filed three interim applications under Order XVIII Rule 17, Section 151, and Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to recall PW-1 and reopen their evidence to introduce additional documents regarding house numbers. They contended that the defendant had raised new pleas during arguments. The Trial Court allowed the applications, holding that no prejudice would be caused. The High Court in revision modified the orders by fixing a timeline for recall and cross-examination and imposing costs of Rs. 20,000 on the plaintiffs, effectively permitting the reopening. The appellant challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether recall and reopening of evidence under Order XVIII Rule 17 could be permitted to fill up lacunae, especially at a belated stage after conclusion of arguments, contrary to settled principles. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17, relying on precedents including Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate and K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy. It held that the provision is intended only to enable the court to clarify doubts and cannot be used to fill omissions in evidence; such power earlier existed under deleted Rule 17A. The High Court's direction permitting recall and reopening was found to be erroneous because the plaintiffs had admitted the absence of houses, and the belated application was a clear attempt to plug gaps in evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside both the High Court’s common order dated 15.09.2023 and the Trial Court’s orders dated 08.12.2022, and dismissed the interim applications. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Recall and Reopening of Evidence - Scope of Order XVIII Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Court's power to recall witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 is not to be exercised to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness; it is limited to clarifying doubts. The belated applications filed after conclusion of evidence and arguments, seeking to produce documents on house numbers despite earlier admission that no houses existed on the suit property, were an attempt to fill lacunae. The High Court erred in permitting such recall. Held that the interim applications were dismissed and the orders below set aside (Paras 5-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in permitting the recall of a witness and reopening of evidence under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when the applications were filed belatedly after conclusion of arguments and were aimed at filling up lacunae in the plaintiffs' evidence
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned common order dated 15.09.2023 of the High Court and the Trial Court orders dated 08.12.2022, and dismissed the interim applications I.A. No. 716 of 2022, I.A. No. 717 of 2022 and I.A. No. 718 of 2022. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is limited to clarifying doubts and not for filling omissions in evidence
- courts must not permit recall of witness for adducing additional evidence after deletion of Rule 17A
- belated applications to fill lacunae are an abuse of process
