The power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall a witness is intended only for the Court to clarify specific doubts or ambiguities in evidence; it cannot be exercised routinely, nor should it be utilized by parties to fill lacunae or omissions in their previously recorded evidence.

Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

The present petition arises out of the order dated 07.10.2025, as passed by learned Rent Controller-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P., whereby the application filed by the present respondent/landlord under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC has been allowed.

The brief facts of the case are that present respondent filed an Execution Petition No. 484 of 2013 against Vikas Kumar. During the pendency of the execution, third party objections were filed by the present petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. Pursuant thereto, issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller on 22.12.2018 and thereafter evidence was led by the respective parties.

The present respondent, namely Vinod Suri, tendered his affidavit in evidence on 18.04.2019, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-11 at running page 48 of the petition. He was thereafter cross-examined on 04.07.2019. After the conclusion of his cross-examination, the respondent/decree holder moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC seeking his re-examination.

In the application, it has been stated that on the previous date of hearing, the decree holder, Vinod Suri, was cross-examined by counsel for the objector, Manoj Kumar, who claims to be a tenant under the decree holder qua the shop in question. The decree holder has, however, always categorically maintained that Manoj Kumar was never a tenant in the premises and has been occupying the same in the capacity of a trespasser.

It has been further stated that during the cross-examination, Vinod Suri was confronted with certain documents prepared by the police, and certain conclusions were sought to be drawn therefrom, necessitating clarification of the contents of those documents by way of his re-examination. It has been stated that the re-examination of Vinod Suri is necessary at this stage to clarify the statement made by the decree holder, Vinod Suri, qua the status of Manoj Kumar in respect of the tenanted premises.

The said application was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. It was averred in the reply that the application was an afterthought and had been filed with an ulterior motive to prejudice the rights of the petitioner. It was further stated that there was a delay in filing the application and, therefore, the same, being devoid of merit, deserves to be rejected.

The learned Rent Controller, vide the impugned order dated 07.10.2025, allowed the application filed by the present respondent by permitting the decree holder to re-examine himself on the points mentioned in the application.

Feeling dissatisfied the objector/petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It was contended by Ms. Chahak Khurana, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the application filed by the present respondent under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC does not disclose sufficient material to warrant its allowance, and that the learned Rent Controller has passed a non-speaking order without referring to the entire factual matrix of the case.

She has further submitted that, in view of the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC cannot be allowed in a routine or casual manner, rather, a case has to be specifically made out for the same. However, in the present case, the respondent/ decree holder has failed to make out such a case.

The provision of Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC reads as follows:

“17. Court may recall and examine witness.—The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.”

The said provision empowers the Court to recall any witness, who has been examined and to put such questions to him as the Cour