The inherent power under Section 151 CPC cannot be utilized to recall witnesses solely to fill gaps in prior evidence; it requires clear justification based on necessity and cannot substitute for adequate reasoning.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Order 18 Rule 17 - Recall of witness for further cross-examination - Application seeking to reopen evidence of DW-3 allowed by the trial court was quashed as it lacked legal basis - The inherent power under Section 151 is not intended to fill gaps in previously given evidence or service of justice without substantial reasoning. (Paras 14, 15, 21, 25)

(B) Legal principles regarding recall of witnesses - Power under Order 18 Rule 17 can be exercised sparingly and is meant for clarifications, not for filling omissions in previously recorded evidence - Costs do not substitute the need for justifiable reasons in court orders. (Paras 11, 12, 22)

Facts of the case:
The respondent filed an application under Section 151 CPC to recall DW-3 for further cross-examination, arguing that significant material was left undisclosed, but the trial court's order lacked reasons and rationale.

Findings of Court:
The application was dismissed due to lack of substantial justification and reasoning behind the recall.

Issues: The court questioned whether sufficient legal grounds existed for recalling a witness whose evidence had been previously concluded without challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court principles preclude the use of inherent powers to remedy omissions without clear necessity, reinforcing that recall should serve a clarificatory purpose based on evidence already provided.

Result: Application to recall DW-3 dismissed.

Table of Content
1. court allows reopening evidence for cross-examination (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12)
2. arguments regarding necessity of recalling dw-3 (Para 9 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 20)
3. court's analysis of recall power limitations (Para 15 , 18 , 21 , 22)
4. legal standards for recalling witnesses clarified (Para 16 , 19 , 24 , 25)
5. final order dismissing recall application (Para 23 , 26)

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. The impugned order dated 5th October 2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS 7298/2016 (Karmawali & Anr. v. Harpreet Singh Batra & Ors.) allows an application preferred by the respondents (the plaintiffs before the learned ADJ) for reopening of the evidence of DW-3, specifically for the purpose of enabling the respondents to further cross-examine DW- 3.

2. Given the nature of the controversy, it is not necessary to refer to the factual matrix in which the disputes between the parties arose. One may start the recital of facts, therefore, with 23rd May 2007, when issues were framed in CS 7298/2016, in which the petitioner was the defendant and the respondents were the plaintiffs.

3. Thereafter, recording of evidence commenced. Four witnesses (PWs) were cited by the respondent, three of whom expired. The fourth was examined and cross-examined and recording of his evidence was concluded on 29th August 2017.

4. Thereafter, recording of the evidence of the petitioner's witnesses (DWs) commenced. The petitioner cited five DWs. Of the five, DW-1 expired and DW-2 was dropped by the petitioner.

5. DW-3, DW-4 and DW-5 were cross-examined, after they filed their respective affidavits in evidence and affirmed the affidavits in evidence in examination-in-chief.

6. DW-3 filed his affidavit in evidence on 6th October 2017. He was cross-examined by the respondents on 6th February 2018, 15th October 2018, 19th October 2018, 22nd January 2019, 29th January 2019, 13th February 2019 and 18th April 2019. The matter was listed for further cross-examination of DW-3, by the respondents, on 15th July 2019.

7. In the interregnum, on 19th November 2018 and 12th December 2018, the recording of evidence of DW-4 was concluded.

8. On 15th July 2019, the following order came to be passed by the learned ADJ.

"CS NO. 7298/16

KARMAWALI AND ANR Vs. HARPREET SINGH BATRA ORS.

15.07.2019

Present: Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for plaintiff.

Sh. Kunal Sinha, counsel for defendant no. 1 to 11 with DW -3.

None for defendant no. 13/DDA.

None for other defendants.

DW-3 is present for further cross examination.

Counsel for plaintiff has filed fresh V/N and also filed the application for Inspection of court file und seeks some time for cross examination of witness on the ground of recent engagement. This case falls in the category of more than ten years old matters. Perused the curlier order-sheets. Last cross examination was conducted on 18.04.2019. Cross examination of DW-3 has been carried out extensively over a period of time and on a number of dates. Counsel for plaintiff submits that in view of recent engagement and without inspection of the court file, he is unable to cross examine the witness. There was no reason for delay in engagement or change of counsel if so desired by the plaintiff. Counsel for defendant no. 1 to 11 submits that there is no other witness to be examined on behalf of defendant no. 1 to 11. One opportunity is granted to the plaintiff for next date of hearing subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to defendant no. 1 to 11.

Some contempt petition is stated to be pending before Hon'ble High Court. Let the clarification be provided on next date of hearing for the same also. Put up on 01.08.2019.

Parties are directed to appear at 11.00 am for cross examination of DW-3."

9. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 1st August 2019, the learned ADJ noted that the costs of Rs. 10,000/-, as directed on 15th July 2019, were yet to be paid. Time was granted till the