Back
K. MANMADHA RAO
Battini Srinivas Rao – Appellant
Versus
Konuri Venkata Chalapathi Rao – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for recalling witnesses in an ongoing civil suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's analysis on trial process and timing of applications. (Para 4 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments on appropriateness of recalling witnesses. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. final dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 10) |
ORDER :
(K. Manmadha Rao, J.)
This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 21.06.2023, in I.A.No.288 of 2023 in O.S.No.395 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District filed under Section 151 and order 18, rule 7 of C.P.C seeking to recall DW1 and DW3 for further cross examination with regard to payment of consideration and other disputes of Ex.A1 transaction.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff; the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.395 of 2018 filed to cancel the Registered Sale Deed dated 11.04.2018 bearing No.1628 of 2018 executed in favour of 1st defendant by the plaintiff for the suit schedule property and same is pending. In the said suit an application in I.A.No.288 of 2023 has been filed to recall DW1 and
Power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC can be exercised by Court not to fill up lacunae in evidence of witness which has already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may h....
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 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 authority to recall a witness for cross-examination after discharge is limited and must be justified; its misuse violates procedural law.
Reopening evidence or recalling witnesses post-trial requires compelling justification; mere intent to fill evidential gaps is insufficient.
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.
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
