Back
ALKA SARIN
Mahabir – Appellant
Versus
Nehru Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner for recalling the plaintiff witnesses i.e. PW-2 Nehru Singh, PW-3 Desh Raj and PW-4 Jaipal for further cross-examination was dismissed.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance. After the pleadings were completed, the plaintiff-respondent concluded his evidence on 30.03.2019 and the defendant-petitioner herein concluded his evidence on 12.01.2023. Subsequently, the present application was filed for recalling the aforesaid witnesses of the plaintiff-respondent for further cross-examination. On 26.04.2024 the said application was dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend that there are certain questions which were not put to the witnesses of the plaintiff-respondent by the counsel representing the defendant-petitioner at that point
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 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 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 to recall witnesses under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to clarify ambiguities, not to fill evidentiary gaps, and should be exercised sparingly.
The provision under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is not intended to fill up lacunae, and repeated applications for recall of the same witness for further cross-examination would not be maintainable.
The provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC are not intended to remedy omissions but to clarify existing evidence, emphasizing its cautious and discretionary use.
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.
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
