Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to summon witnesses after the closure of evidence and at the stage of final arguments to fill lacunae, as this would defeat procedural discipline and encourage dilatory tactics.

JUDGMENT

CM(M) 145/2026;

01. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Kulgam, whereby an application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 seeking summoning of a witness, namely Shri Jatinder Singh, has been rejected.

02. The record reveals that the respondent/plaintiff has instituted a suit for recovery of an amount of ₹4,50,000/- against the petitioner under Order XXXVII CPC. The petitioner contested the suit and was granted leave to defend, whereafter the matter proceeded for trial.

03. It further emerges from the record that the petitioner herein had filed a list of witnesses before the trial court, wherein the name of the aforesaid witness, namely Jatinder Singh, figured at Serial No. 6.

04. The record also indicates that the petitioner herein had filed an application seeking summoning of the said witness. The said request, as reflected from the order dated 10.03.2020, came to be rejected.

05. The Principal District Judge, Kulgam, after granting opportunities to the petitioner to lead evidence, ultimately closed the evidence of the petitioner/defendant on 24.11.2023. Thereafter, the matter came to be listed for final arguments.

06. At a subsequent stage, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking summoning of the said witness through process of the court. The said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff.

07. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, dismissed the application vide order dated 05.08.2025. The trial court, while doing so, observed that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the petitioner to produce his witnesses and that the evidence stood closed. It was also noticed that the request for procuring the attendance of the same witness had earlier been declined.

08. The trial court further took note of the fact that the case has been pending for final arguments for a considerable period and observed that the application was an attempt to protract the proceedings.

09. The trial court also considered the scope of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and observed that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC pertains to recalling of a witness who has already been examined and does not empower the court to call a witness whose statement has not been recorded earlier. It was further observed by the Learned Trial Court that the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case to summon the witness at such a stage.

10. Heard and considered

11. The question that arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court was justified in declining such request and whether interference is warranted in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

12. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature and is to be exercised sparingly. This Court does not act as a court of appeal and cannot reappreciate the matter merely because another view is possible. Interference is confined to cases where there is patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or manifest perversity.

13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand, reported as (1972) 1 SCC 898 held as under:

“Article 227 of the Constitution no doubt