Back
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
Important Points
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.
Act Referred
EVIDENCE ACT : S.165
Headnote
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
civil procedure
-
order xviii rule 17
- recall of witness
- scope and limitation
- improper invocation
-
order vii rule 14
- receiving documents
-
interim applications
- filing and disposal
- delay and futility
-
order xviii rule 17
-
evidence
- reopening evidence
- examination of witness
- cross-examination
-
facts of the case
- property title and possession
- admission and evidence status
- history of litigation
-
constitutional and legal principles
- discretion of court
- principles from referred cases
-
result
- appeal allowed
- set aside order
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.
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
