Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Daggubati Venkatesh – Appellant
Versus
W3 Hospitality Services Private Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
Civil Revision Petition No.2858 of 2024 is filed challenging the order, dated 22.03.2024, passed in I.A.No.392 of 2024 in O.S.No.283 of 2020 by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
2. Civil Revision Petition No.2815 of 2024 is filed challenging the order dated 22.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.393 of 2024 in O.S.No.283 of 2020 by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
3. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is interconnected and the result is interdependent, both the Revision Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by common order.
4. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
5. Heard Sri T Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri P.Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel on record for the respondent.
6. The brief facts of the case, required for disposal of the present Revision Petitions, are that plaintiff filed the suit-OS.No.283 of 2023 against the defendant for eviction, r
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 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 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.
Reopening evidence or recalling witnesses post-trial requires compelling justification; mere intent to fill evidential gaps is insufficient.
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 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.
Power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC can be exercised by Court not to fill up lacunae in evidence of witness which has already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may h....
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
