Back
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Uppala Veera Raghavamma Kumri Jyothi – Appellant
Versus
Rayudu Durgarao – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil revision petition introduction and context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of the suit and parties involved. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding cross-examination issues. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court observations on recalling witness rules. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. final conclusion and order by the court. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
(Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.)
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order, dated 27.03.2023, passed in I.A.No.174 of 2023 in O.S.No.231 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, whereby the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC'], to recall DW1 for further cross-examination was allowed.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the Respondent.
3. The Petitioners are the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.231 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The said Suit was filed by the Respondent herein, who is the Plaintiff in the said Suit, for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note, dated 10.06.2018. After closure of the evidence of the Plaintiff, the Suit was posted for evidence
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.
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 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 cross-examination rights of parties in a trial must be preserved according to procedural rules, ensuring fairness in witness examination, which was violated in this case.
The authority to recall a witness for cross-examination after discharge is limited and must be justified; its misuse violates procedural law.
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.
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
