Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:27:24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.1165 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

Gurudutta Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus-

Madhusudan Sahoo & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. P.C.Acharya, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. A.K.Acharya, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

20^th November 2025 B.P. Routray, J.

1. Mr. P.C.Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to delete the name of Opposite Parties 2 & 3 at his risk.

2. Accordingly, the name of Opposite Parties 2 & 3 is deleted.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:27:24

3. Heard Mr. P.C.Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A.K.Acharya, learned counsel for Opposite Parties.

4. Present CMP is directed assailing order dated 17^th June 2025 of learned Senior Civil Judge, 1^st Court, Cuttack passed in C.S. No.1052 of 2022, wherein the prayer of Defendants No.1 & 2 to recall D.W.2 to mark Plaintiff’s daughter’s Marriage Invitation Card as Ext.A has been refused.

5. The Plaintiff, who is present Opposite Party No.1, filed the suit praying for partition. In the suit, a dispute is raised on behalf of Defendants No.1 & 2 that the Plaintiff is not the son of Defendant No.1. In order to substantiate such contention Defendants No.1 & 2 have adduced their evidence after closer of evidence from the side of the Plaintiff. Now at the stage of continuation of evidence from the side of other Defendants and pending examination of D.W.3, such prayer has been made on behalf of Defendants No.1 & 2 to recall D.W.2 for the afore-stated purpose.

6. It is true that the Court has very limited power under Order 18 Rule 17 to recall any witness for further examination. Explaining the principles with regard to Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:27:24

151 CPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy v. N.

Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275, have held as follows:-

“9. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code enables the court, at any stage of a suit, to recall any witness who has been examined (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) and put such questions to him as it thinks fit. The power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 can be exercised by the court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit requesting the court to exercise the said power. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the court to clarify any doubts it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. (Vide Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate [(2009) 4 SCC 410 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 198] .)

10. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily a provision enabling the court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo motu, or at the request of any party, so that the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions.

11. There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 13:27:24 examination-in-chief or cross-examination. Section 151 of the Code provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary f