HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8588/2012

Laxminarain Bagra Son Of Shri Om Prakash Bagra, By Caste

Bagra Brahmin, resident of Village Badarna, Tehsil Amer, District

Jaipur

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Additional District And Session Judge No. 2, Jaipur

Metropolian

…. Proforma Respondent

2.

Nanagram S/o Late Shri Gopal,

3.

Ramjilal S/o Late Shri Gopal,

4.

Lalaram S/o Late Shri Gopal,

5.

Mst. Barji Widow Of Late Gopal,

All By Caste Brahmin, resident Of Village Badharna, Tehsil

Amer, District Jaipur

----Respondents/Defendants

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment / Order

29/04/2019

1.

By way of this writ petition, the plaintiff-petitioner has

assailed the order dated 10/05/2012 passed by the learned trial

court whereby on the date fixed for pronouncement of judgment,

the learned trial court has reopened the evidence of the

defendants-respondents and directed for further cross-

examination of DW-1-Lalaram while exercising powers under

Section 151 CPC.

(2 of 5)

[CW-8588/2012]

2.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the

evidence of the defendants-respondents was closed on

06/03/2012 whereafter there was no application moved on behalf

of the defendants-respondents for reopening of the evidence. The

power available under Section 151 CPC could not have been

exercised for reopening of the evidence either for cross-

examination or for examination-in-chief. He relies on the law laid

down by the Apex Court in K.K. Velusamy Vs. N.Palanisamy:

(2011) 11 SCC 275.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents

while supporting the order impugned dated 10/05/2012 submits

that the judicial discretion available with the learned trial court has

been exercised and once the learned trial court has found that

there was some evidence lacking, in order to do complete justice,

the powers under Section 151 CPC could be invoked.

4.

After hearing the submissions made at bar by learned

counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the law laid down by

the Apex Court in the K.K. Velusamy Vs. N.Palanisamy

(supra) did not leave any question further to be examined by this

Court. In K.K. Velusamy Vs. N.Palanisamy (supra), the Apex

Court has examined the provisions of Section 151 CPC and also

the effect of provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and has held as

under:-

“11. There is no specific provision in the Code

enabling the parties to re-open the evidence for the

purpose of further 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 for the ends

of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of

(3 of 5)

[CW-8588/2012]

the court. In the absence of any provision providing

for reopening of evidence or recall of any witness for

further examination or cross-examination, for

purposes other than securing clarification required by

the court, the inherent power under Section 151 of

the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in

appropriate cases to reopen the evidence and/or

recall witnesses for further examination. This inherent

power of the court is not affected by the express

power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule

17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the

court to put such question to elicit any clarifications.”

5.

The Apex Court in K.K. Velusamy Vs. N.Palanisamy

(supra), has also summarized the scope of Section 151 CPC as

explained in various judgments as under:-

“We may summarise them as follows :

(a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which

creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts.

It merely recognise