Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
PANKAJ JAIN
Pardeep Singla – Appellant
Versus
Harish chander – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Jain, J.
1. This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaito rejecting an application filed for recalling witness PW-4 by the petitioner.
2. Respondent No.l filed civil suit bearing No.CS/16/2018 titled as Dr. Harish Chander Vs. Vijay Bhadari etc. against the petitioner seeking decree of recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- as damages/compensation for causing injuries to the plaintiff.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioner. Dr. Avtar Singh was examined as PW-5. His examination in chief was recorded on 15.07.2023. His cross-examination was deferred on the request made by counsel for the defendants. He was cross-examined on 24.07.2023.
4. Thereafter the present application was moved for recalling PW-5 Dr. Avtar Singh for further cross-examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that Dr. Avtar Singh has been in fact examined as PW-5 in the Civil Suit. He was examined as PW-4 in the criminal trial. Inadvertently in the Civil proceedings before this Court and in the application he was wrongly referred to as PW-4 instead of
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 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 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 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 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.
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
