Order on Board

05 . 02.2025

1. The petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the order passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bilaspur passed in Civil Suit No.

291A/2017 dated 17.12.2024, whereby an application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected.

2. Mr. Sobhit Koshta, counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. He would further submit that after the completion of plaintiffs’ evidence, an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC was moved by the plaintiffs to exhibit certain documents which were placed on record subsequently. He would also submit that the application moved under Order 17 Rule 14 (3) of CPC was allowed by the learned trial Court, but the plaintiffs have not been permitted to exhibit those documents. It is contended that as the documents are already on record, the learned trial Court ought to have permitted the plaintiffs to exhibit those documents. In support, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) through Lrs. vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 198.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (supra) while dealing with the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC held that provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. It is further observed that the purpose of the provisions is to enable the Court to clarify any doubts that may have arisen during the course of his examination and prejudice may not be a ground for exercise of such power by the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 25, 26 &

31 held as under:-

“25. In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of witnesses, the main purpose of the said rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined.

26. As indicated by the learned Single Judge, the evidence now being sought to be introduced by recalling the witness in question, was available at the time when the affidavit of evidence of the witness was prepared and affirmed. It is not as if certain new facts have been discovered subsequently which were not within the knowledge of the applicant when the affidavit evidence was prepared.

31. Some of the principles akin to Order 47 CPC may be applied when a party makes an application under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, but it is ultimately within the Court's discretion, if it deems fit, to allow such an application. In the present appeal, no such case has been made out.”

6. In the present case, the plaintiffs placed on record the order passed by Additional Collector, Bilaspur in Revision Case No. 85A/12/2022-23 dated 15.07.2024 by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC and that application was allowed on 29.08.2024. The petitioners wanted to exhibit that document; therefore, they moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC to re-call the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs’ evidence was closed.

7. Taking into consideration the fact that the application for taking document on record was allowed, the application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC was moved only to exhibit the said document and further considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (supra), in my opinion, the learned trial Court