Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
P. Laxmi Devemma – Appellant
Versus
Kurva Anjaneyulu – Respondent
ORDER :
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by the Docket order, dated 25.02.2025 by the learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal, in I.A. Nos.184 of 2024 and 192 of 2024 in O.S. No.2 of 2014, whereby No.184 of 2024 filed under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to set aside the ex parte order, dated 17.04.2014 and IA No.192 of 2024 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking recall of PW.1 to PW.3 for the purpose of cross-examination.
2. Heard Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Raghavendra Reddy learned counsel appearing for respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.2 of 2014 who filed a suit on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 in the said suit.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that, after service of summons, the petitioner entered appearance and file
The denial of cross-examination constitutes serious procedural injustice, necessitating exercise of inherent powers for fairness and justice.
Reopening evidence or recalling witnesses post-trial requires compelling justification; mere intent to fill evidential gaps is insufficient.
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 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 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 order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory and not subject to revision. Recalling a witness should be balanced with considerations of fairness, undue hardship to witnesses, and delay in the ....
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
