Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY
Mir Kasim – Appellant
Versus
Dhoi Datti – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final conclusion of case dismissal. (Para 1 , 7 , 10) |
| 2. facts about defendant's cross-examination application. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding validity of cross-examination. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's analysis on recalling witnesses. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 5. rationale for denying recall of witness. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
B.P. ROUTRAY, J.
1. Heard Ms. P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. S.S. Deo, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 & 9.
2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the order dated 18.07.2025 of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) 2nd Court, Cuttack passed in C.S. No.169 of 2013, wherein the prayer of Defendants 1 to 4 to further cross-examine D.W.3 by recall has been rejected.
3. Present Opposite Parties 1, 2, 3, 5 being the Plaintiffs filed C.S. No.169 of 2013 praying for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property along with permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. After closure of evidence from the side of the Plaintiffs, witnesses from the side of Defendant No.3 were examined and D.W.3 is the witness examined from the side of Defendant Nos.6 and 7. On the date of examination of said D.W.3 after
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 authority to recall a witness for cross-examination after discharge is limited and must be justified; its misuse violates procedural law.
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 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 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.
Cross-examination under O.18, R.17 of the CPC is to clarify evidence, not to remedy previous omissions.
The right to effective cross-examination is fundamental to a fair trial, and parties must be given adequate opportunities to present their defenses, particularly when prior cross-examinations were in....
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
