Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Savitri Ratho
Debi Prasad Rayaguru – Appellant
Versus
Basanti Mishra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Savitri Ratho, J.
This application has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner with a prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 28.12.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pipili (hereinafter “trial court”) in Civil Suit No.45/390 of 2017/2010, rejecting the application filed under Order-18 Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”) to recall the C.W.1, Laxmidhar Das (the Amin Commissioner) for his further cross-examination at the cost of the plaintiff.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. That the suit had been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction against the defendant-opposite party and other reliefs.
3. Written statement and counter claim was filed by the defendant and written statement to the counter claim was filed by the plaintiff. An application had been filed by the defendant to appointment of a survey knowing Commissioner, along with the questions proposed to be asked to him. The Amin Commissioner was appointed under Order 26, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. and submitted his report. The plaintiff-petitioner filed an objection to
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.
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.
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 recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying doubts and not to fill up any lacuna or omission in the evidence already recorded.
Recall of witness – Power is to be used for removing ambiguities, for clarifying statement and not for the purposes of filling up lacuna in a party's case – Right to put questions to witness recalled....
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 Court ruled that reopening witness evidence for cross-examination under CPC Order XVIII Rule 17 is permissible only to clarify ambiguities, not to fill evidence gaps after closure, and subsequent....
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
