The court affirmed that inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC should complement existing rules and not replace them, highlighting the limits of reopening evidence post-closure.

JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

The civil revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur whereby the application filed by respondent for additional evidence has been allowed.

2. Vide this application respondent-plaintiff has sought permission to prove on record map by examining draftsman and Halqa Patwari and mutations No. 6341, 6342 and 6258 with amended site plan of mutation. The application was moved on the grounds that applicant-plaintiff inadvertently closed the evidence without examining the witnesses and it would be helpful for the Court to arrive at correct decision. The learned Civil Judge allowed the application on the grounds that grounds mentioned in the application seems to be genuine and every party should be given proper opportunity to prove his case by leading his evidence. The order has been assailed on the grounds that respondent has got sufficient opportunities to lead his evidence and he himself has closed his evidence and once evidence is closed the Court has no jurisdiction to re-open the same except under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC or Order VII Rule 14 of CPC for limited purpose. They resort to residuary provision under Section 151 CPC is impermissible and that additional evidence cannot be allowed to fill up lacuna in the evidence as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy, 2011 (11) SCC 275.

3. Learned counsel has further contended that Section 151 CPC is meant to prevent the abuse of process and to meet ends of justice and that the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked to circumvent the procedural law once evidence is closed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the file carefully.

5. The authority relied upon by the petitioner pertains to provisions of Rule 17 of Order XVIII of CPC with regard to power of the Court to recall the witness. The same reads as under :-

"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."

Rule 17 of Order XVIII of CPC deals with the power of the Court, wherein Court requires any explanation from any witness in order to effectively adjudicate the matter and the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically laid down in K.K. Velusamy versus N.Palanisamy (supra) that inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of CPC is not affected by the express power conferred on the Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

'This inherent power of the Court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the Court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the Court to put such question to elicit any clarifications. The power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit requesting the Court to exercise the said power. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the Court to clarify any issue or doubt it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties by recalling any witness so that the court itself can put question and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions. However, this power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. Order 18 Rule 17 is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which couldnot be produced when the evidence was being recorded.'

6. Consequently, in view of the findings of the Apex Court, most of th