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.

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

Present revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 03.02.2025 whereby application filed by the petitioner (defendant No.5) under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recalling the witness PW-7 Dr. B.L. Goyal for further cross-examination, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession to the extent of 1/4th share of land as fully described in the plaint. Further challenge was to the sale deed executed by deceased - Harbans Kaur - in favour of defendant No.1 as also the sale deed executed by defendant No.4 being attorney of defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6. Dr. B.L. Goyal, retired Director, Mental Hospital as well as retired Principal, Government Medical College, Amritsar stepped into the witness-box as PW-7 on behalf of plaintiff-respondent No.1. He was examined on 15.01.2024 and was cross-examined through video conferencing on 09.07.2024 and 05.08.2024. On 05.08.2024 the cross-examination of the said witness was completed. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for recalling the witness PW-7 Dr. B.L. Goyal for further cross-examination on the ground that due to inadvertent mistake and oversight the witness could not be cross-examined qua the medical terminology and hence the witness be recalled for further cross-examination. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would inter alia contend that there are certain medical terminologies referred to by the witness which were not clarified by the counsel during the cross-examination due to his lack of medical knowledge and therefore the witness was required to be recalled.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case the application has been filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC reads as under :

'17. Court may recall and examine witness - The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.'

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Rati Vs. Mange Ram (D) thr LRs & Ors. [2016 (2) RCR (Civil) 464], after considering the various judgments, has held as under :

'12. In Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (Dead) Through LRs. v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 508: (2009) 4 SCC 410, this principle has been summarised at paragraphs- 25, 28 and 29:

13. In K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 875 : 2011(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 83 : (2011) 11 SCC 275, the principles enunciated in Vadiraj (supra) have been followed, holding at paragraphs 9 and 10:

18. The settled legal position under Order 18, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, being thus very clear, the impugned orders passed by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court to recall a witness at the instance of the respondent 'for further elaboration on the left out points', is wholly impermissible in law.'

7. In the present case, except for stating that certain medical terminologies need to be clarified, no other cogent reason is forthcoming for re-examining an expert witness or recalling him for further cross-examination. It is trite that the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC are to be sparingly used and cannot be invoked for filling in the lacuna in the case. In the present case the Trial Court has specifically observed that the said witness was examined at length by the counsel for the defendants. Having examined a witness in detail on two occasions, present application cannot be allowed merely to fill in the lacuna in the case. Merely for explaining the medical terminologies, the witness cannot be recalled.