Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Gopi Kishan Khandelwal – Appellant
Versus
Archana Tripathi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No.12 of 2020 (Archana Tripathi vs. Gopi Kishan Khandelwal), whereby Application No. 99C/99-Ga filed by the petitioner–tenant seeking recall/re- examination of witness DW-1 was rejected. The petitioner has also assailed the subsequent order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 24, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Revision No. 81 of 2025, whereby the revision against the trial court’s order was dismissed.
2. The petition raises a significant question concerning the scope and application of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 137, 138 and 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly the fine distinction between an impermissible attempt to fill up lacunae in evidence and a permissible exercise of seeking clarification of an ambiguity in a witness’s testimony, so as to enable the Court to arrive at the truth and ensure a fair adjudication.
3. The underlying SCC Suit No.12 of 2020 was instituted by the respond
The discretion to recall a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC allows clarification of ambiguities in testimony, essential for fair adjudication without filling gaps in evidence.
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.
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 right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying any do....
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 Court ruled that reopening witness evidence for cross-examination under CPC Order XVIII Rule 17 is permissible only to clarify ambiguities, not to fill evidence gaps after closure, and subsequent....
The court's discretion to recall witnesses and reopen evidence exists to clarify contradictions rather than fill evidence gaps, ensuring justice and preventing abuse of the process.
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
