Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 868

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.V.N. BHATTI, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
K. Bharathamma - Appellant
Versus
Bandaru Sakku Bai And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 10031 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2744-2746 of 2024)
Decided On : 04-08-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Bijoy Kumar Jain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR Mr. Md. Zeeshan Ali, Adv. Mr. Amit Pandey, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Recall of witness – Power to recall a witness is in realm of discretion of court – It is not permissible that evidence by a party already led and settled is allowed to be improved by reopening evidence or recalling witness under Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC.

Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XVIII Rule 17 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 165 – Recall of witness – Power to recall a witness is in realm of discretion of court – A witness may be recalled by court on its own motion or on application by any party to suit – Court can put questions to witness – No cross-examination is ordinarily open without leave on answers to questions put by Judge – Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC is not to be utilised to permit a party to fill up lacunae in evidence – Frequent resort to use of Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC, has tendency to develop into abuse of process of court and procrastination of litigation – Court should not allow this provision to become a handy tool for a party to suit proceedings to prolong litigation – Provision of Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC, cannot be invoked on specious ground that recalling the witness or reopening evidence would not prejudice other side. (Paras 5.1, 5.2, 5.5, 5.6.1, 5.7 and 5.8)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XVIII Rule 17 – Recall of witness – This provision aims to become an aid to court in adjudicating process of suit and to be used and invoked within discipline of trial and within bounds of rules of evidence – It is not permissible that evidence by a party already led and settled is allowed to be improved by reopening evidence or recalling witness under this Order of CPC – Not absence of prejudice but independent justification must exist before court can legitimately take resort to Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC – In instant case plaintiffs filed interim applications for reopening evidence and recalling witnesses under Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC, after issues in suit were settled and after closure of evidence, final arguments had travelled beyond half-way – Interim application under Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC were filed as a delaying tactics and was destined to be a futile exercise – Directions passed by High Court per se did not fell within purview and parameters of exercisable powers under Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC – Impugned common order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4 and 10)

Facts of the case:

In present three appeals, challenge is directed against common order dated 15.09.2023 of High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad, whereby High Court disposed of three Civil Revision Petitions filed by the defendant No.1-appellant herein, in the proceedings of Original Civil Suit before Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

Findings of Court:

Impugned order of the High Court and the directions issued therein are not sustainable in law.

Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

2. In the present three appeals, the challenge is directed against common order dated 15.09.2023 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad¹[Hereinafter, “High Court”], whereby the High Court disposed of three Civil Revision Petitions filed by the defendant No.1-appellant herein, in the proceedings of Original Civil Suit No. 489 of 2010, renumbered as Original Suit No. 1302 of 2022, before learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District²[Hereinafter, “Trial Court”].

2.1 The three Revision Petition Nos. 458 of 2023, 496 of 2023 and 621 of 2023 arose out of the orders, all dated 08.12.2022, passed by the Trial Court in Interim Application³[Hereinafter, “I.A.”] No. 716 of 2022, I.A. No.717 of 2022 and I.A. No.718 of 2022, filed by the original plaintiffs-respondents herein. I.A. No.716 of 2022 was an application under Order XVIII Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908⁴[Hereinafter, “CPC”] seeking to recall PW-1 for marking document in the evidence, whereas I.A. No.717 of 2022 and I.A. No.718 of 2022 were filed under Section 151, CPC and under Order VII Rule 14, CPC respectively praying to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence and to receive documents as per the list of documents, respectively.

2.2 The Trial Court allowed the interim applications by order dated 08.12.2022. When the appellant-original defendant No.1 challenged the said orders of the Trial Court, the High Court disposed of all the three revision petitions by modifying the orders dated 08.12.2022 passed in three interim applications by inter-alia directing the Trial Court to complete the exercise of recalling PW-1 and reopen the evidence of PW-1 and further to mark the documents within stipulated time. Appellant-defendant No.1 was directed to complete the process within the time indicated. The applicants of the interim applications were asked to pay the cost of Rs.20,000/- to the respondents.

3. Before adverting to the pleadings in the Interim Applications and the prayers made therein, in order to have the proper context, the facts relating to the suit may be set out. By instituting the suit in the year 2010, the plaintiffs-respondents herein prayed for declaration that they were the absolute owners of the suit properties mentioned in Schedules A, B and C of the plaint bearing House No.11-71/2 (new), Old No.8-5, admeasuring 400 sq.yds., No.11-71/3 (new), Old No.5-48, admeasuring 200 sq.yds. and 11-71/4 (new) and Old No.8-68, admeasuring 200 sq.yds. in Survey No.433 to 438 and 448 to 452, situated at Ghatkesar village and Mandal, R.R. District. It was further prayed to declare that the sale deeds dated 21.05.1987 and 31.11.1987, executed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of the land to the extent of 400 square yards, were null and void. It was next prayed to perpetually injunct the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties.

3.1 The case of the appellant herein who is defendant No.1 in the suit has been, inter-alia, that the appellant purchased Plot Nos.7 and 8 by way of two registered sale deeds in the year 1987 as stated above. It was the case that the appellant has been in uninterrupted possession of the suit properties for more than last 23 years. It appears that the appellant had also filed Original Suit No.348 of 1988 against the plaintiffs in the Court of Principal District Munsif, R.R. District, wherein the decree of perpetual injunction dated 21.11.1990 was passed against the plaintiffs, in operation till date. In view of the decree in favour, the appellant obtained a sanction to construct compound wall, two rooms and a bathroom on the said property. Pursuant to the permission granted by the Gram Panchayat, the construction was stated to have been carried out. Writ Petition No.23459 of 2001 came to be filed by the appellant against the plaintiffs seeking to implement the aforementioned decree f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 868

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAS.V.N. BHATTI, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.K. Bharathamma - Appellant VersusBandaru Sakku Bai And Others – RespondentsCivil Appeal Nos. 10031 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2744-2746 of 2024)Decided On : 04-08-2026

IMPORTANT POINTRecall of witness – Power to recall a witness is in realm of discretion of court – It is not permissible that evidence by a party already led and settled is allowed to be improved by reopening evidence or recalling witness under Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC.

Cases Referred (7)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.V.N. BHATTI, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
K. Bharathamma - Appellant
Versus
Bandaru Sakku Bai And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 10031 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2744-2746 of 2024)
Decided On : 04-08-2026

IMPORTANT POINT
Recall of witness – Power to recall a witness is in realm of discretion of court – It is not permissible that evidence by a party already led and settled is allowed to be improved by reopening evidence or recalling witness under Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC.