Latest JudgementCode of Civil Procedure, 1908
Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh & Ors., 2025
The Subject is to define the limited scope of recalling witnesses under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC that is clarification by court only, not for party-led cross-examination.
Supreme Court of India·6 May 2025
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
6 May 2025
Judges
Justice J.B. Pardiwala ⦁ Justice R. Mahadevan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)
Section 151 CPC
Facts of the Case
- The appellant filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC before the trial court seeking to recall a witness for further cross-examination.
- The trial court dismissed the application. The appellant challenged this before the High Court, which also refused to interfere.
- The appellant then approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.
Issues
- Whether a party can recall a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for further examination or cross-examination?
- Whether the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is confined to the court's use for clarification purposes only?
- Whether parties can invoke Section 151 CPC to recall a witness in exceptional cases?
Judgement
- The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- It ruled that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is intended only to allow the court to seek clarification from a witness.
- The rule does not give any party the right to recall a witness for further examination or cross-examination.
- However, the court clarified that in appropriate circumstances, the trial court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to permit such recall, but this is exceptional and not routine.
Held
- A party cannot seek recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for further cross-examination.
- The court alone can recall a witness under this rule to seek clarification.
- Parties may request such a recall only under Section 151 CPC, and even then, it's subject to the court’s discretion.
Analysis
- This decision reaffirms the limited scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, echoing earlier rulings such as K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275.
- The court emphasized the need to prevent misuse of procedural provisions that could allow parties to fill gaps in their evidence after the trial has progressed.
- The judgment strikes a balance between judicial efficiency and fair trial principles, by allowing recall only in exceptional situations through inherent powers, ensuring that this does not become a tool for delay or abuse of process.