IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 17 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6304 of 2024 RAMESH CHANDRA RATHORE Versus SMT SAROJ GUPTA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Mahesh Goyal - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Santosh Agrawal- Advocate for respondents.

ORDER It is needless to mention here that initially, this miscellaneous petition was disposed of by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 5th February, 2025, in light of order dated 07-01-2025 passed in MP No. 6269 of 2024, and order dated 07-01- 2025 was applied mutatis mutandis to present miscellaneous petition. Thereafter, petitioner filed Review Petition No. 653 of 2025 before same Bench for recalling order dated 05-02-2025 passed in this Misc. Petition. Review petition was allowed vide order dated 29th October, 2025, recalling order dated 05-02-2025, and present miscellaneous petition was restored to its original number.

2. Hence, present Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by petitioner-defendant challenging order dated 18-10-2024 passed by Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Morena in RCSA No.150 of 2019. Order impugned herein rejected application filed by petitioner (defendant) under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC for recalling witnesses in light of amendments made to written statement.

3. In brief, necessary facts for adjudication of this petition, as narrated therein, are that respondents filed civil suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against petitioner. Respondents claimed that petitioner is tenant in shop owned by respondent located at Sarafa Bazar, Morena. Petitioner has allegedly not paid rent since 01-01-2017, and respondents further contended that shop is required for business of Ayush Gupta, son of respondent.

4. Petitioner denied allegations and filed written statement wherein he contended that rent was paid, and respondents were refusing to accept it. On 03- 09-2024, petitioner made amendments to his written statement, and based on these amendments, he filed application for recalling respondents' witnesses under Order

18 Rule 17 of CPC, which was rejected by trial court vide impugned order.

5. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that trial court erred in dismissing application for recalling witnesses. It is argued that amendments carried out on 03- 09-2024 necessitated recall of witnesses in order to cross-examine them with respect to newly introduced facts. Trial court did not consider relevance of amendments while dismissing application. Therefore, it is prayed that impugned order dated 18-10-2024 be set aside and application for recalling witnesses be allowed in interest of justice.

6. On other hand, learned counsel for respondents has opposed petition, contending that amendments made by petitioner do not introduce any new facts that would require re-examination of witnesses. It is argued that petitioner’s application is merely part of ongoing process to delay proceedings, and no valid grounds exist for recalling witnesses. Reliance has been placed on case of Shubhkaran Singh vs. Abhayraj Singh and others, 2025 SC 772, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "recall of witnesses under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC should only be allowed when amendments or new facts brought forth materially affect proceedings, and failure to recall witnesses would result in miscarriage of justice." Hence, prays for dismissal of this petition.

7. Upon hearing counsel for both parties and perusing case records, it is evident that trial court, in impugned order, considered application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC carefully. Trial court held that defendant (petitioner) had amended his written statement on 03-09-2024. Amendments were not found to introduce any new facts that would warrant recall of witnesses, as defendant was free to lead evidence regarding amendments.

8. Order 18 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure provides that court may, at any stage of suit, recall witness for further exa