Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Shubhkaran Singh – Appellant
Versus
Abhayraj Singh – Respondent
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
ORDER
1. Exemption Application is allowed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 7-1-2025 in Miscellaneous Petition No.7264/2024 by which the petition filed by the petitioner – herein under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, “CPC”) came to be rejected.
4. It appears that the petitioner – herein also preferred a Review Petition No.117/2025. The Review Petition came to be rejected vide Order dated 27-2-2025.
5. In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks to challenge both the orders referred to above.
6. Order 18 Rule 17 reads as under:-
7. This Rule provides the Court with a power which is necessary for the proper conduct of a case. If it appears to a court trying the suit at any stage of the proceedings that it is necessary to recall and further examine a witness it can always do so. This power can be exercised even at the stage o
Recall of witness – Power is to be used for removing ambiguities, for clarifying statement and not for the purposes of filling up lacuna in a party's case – Right to put questions to witness recalled....
The court emphasized that powers under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC cannot be used to fill omissions in previously recorded witness evidence, reaffirming its intended use for clarification only.
The power to recall witnesses under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to clarify ambiguities, not to fill evidentiary gaps, and should be exercised sparingly.
The power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 is discretionary and should not be used to exploit evidentiary gaps; it must prioritize justice and not disrupt trial proceedings.
The power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC should be sparingly used in exceptional circumstances and only if there are valid and sufficient reasons for the recall of witnesses. Costs should be imposed t....
The authority to recall a witness for cross-examination after discharge is limited and must be justified; its misuse violates procedural law.
Cross-examination under O.18, R.17 of the CPC is to clarify evidence, not to remedy previous omissions.
The Court ruled that reopening witness evidence for cross-examination under CPC Order XVIII Rule 17 is permissible only to clarify ambiguities, not to fill evidence gaps after closure, and subsequent....
The power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is intended to clarify doubts and not to fill omissions in evidence or to allow for further elaboration on left-out issues.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
