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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interconnected civil revision petitions (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments for reopening evidence (Para 5 , 9 , 12 , 14 , 18) |
| 4. background of the suit and applications (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 5. background facts and procedural history of the case. (Para 7) |
| 6. arguments presented by both parties regarding the trial court's orders. (Para 11 , 13) |
| 7. burden of proof standards (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. court's analysis of the burden of proof and legal standards. (Para 17) |
| 9. limitations on recalling witnesses (Para 19 , 20) |
| 10. defendant’s attempt to reopen evidence (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 11. final decision to allow revision petitions (Para 24 , 25) |
| 12. final decision to set aside the trial court's orders. (Para 26) |
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 Hyder
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
