AI Overview...

Order XVIII Rule 17 - Purpose and Scope Main Points: Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC primarily allows courts to recall and examine witnesses to clarify doubts or issues that arise during trial. Its main purpose is not to fill lacunae or omissions or to re-examine witnesses for additional evidence unless exceptional circumstances exist. The rule emphasizes sparing exercise, meaning it should be used judiciously and only when necessary for clarification Sunita Devi VS Raj Kumar Singhal - Delhi, Uppala Veera Raghavamma Kumri Jyothi VS Rayudu Durgarao - Andhra Pradesh, Daggubati Venkatesh vs W3 Hospitality Services Private Limited - Telangana.
Conditions for Recall of Witness Main Points: Recall is permissible when there is a genuine doubt remaining after the initial examination, or in exceptional cases where clarification is essential. It is not meant for parties to re-examine witnesses to fill gaps or to introduce new material. The court's discretion is limited, and recall should not cause prejudice or be used as a routine tool Sunita Devi VS Raj Kumar Singhal - Delhi, Uppala Veera Raghavamma Kumri Jyothi VS Rayudu Durgarao - Andhra Pradesh, Vitta Kristappa(died) rep. by LRs vs E. Guru Reddy - Andhra Pradesh.
Legal Principles and Judicial Interpretation Main Points: Courts have consistently held that Order XVIII Rule 17 should be exercised sparingly. The main aim is to clarify evidence, not to enable parties to re-examine witnesses for their benefit. The Supreme Court and High Courts have reiterated that the provision is not intended to fill procedural lacunae or to re-open evidence arbitrarily Sunita Devi VS Raj Kumar Singhal - Delhi, Uppala Veera Raghavamma Kumri Jyothi VS Rayudu Durgarao - Andhra Pradesh, Daggubati Venkatesh vs W3 Hospitality Services Private Limited - Telangana, Sardar Vallabhhbai Patel National Police Academy vs Kaling Corp. rep. by Mr.Jai Kumar - Telangana.
Application and Judicial Discretion Main Points: Applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 are to be granted only in appropriate cases where the court finds sufficient reason, and not merely because no prejudice is caused. Courts have dismissed applications where the purpose was to fill evidentiary lacunae or to re-examine witnesses for additional evidence, emphasizing the limited scope of the rule Baswa Venkateswara Rao vs Padala Builibhami Reddy - Andhra Pradesh, Gundluru Sreenivasulu, S/o Late Subbachari VS Gundluru Bhagyamma, W/o Late Subramanyam Achari - Andhra Pradesh.
Case Law and Judicial Viewpoints Main Points: The Supreme Court and various High Courts have clarified that the rule is to be used to clarify doubts and not as a routine measure. For example, in the Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate case, it was held that the power is to be exercised sparingly and only when necessary for clarification, not to fill procedural gaps Sunita Devi VS Raj Kumar Singhal - Delhi, Daggubati Venkatesh vs W3 Hospitality Services Private Limited - Telangana.

Analysis and Conclusion:The consistent judicial view across the sources underscores that filing a petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 for recall of witnesses is permissible only under specific, limited circumstances—primarily for clarifying doubts or issues that remain unresolved after initial examination. It is not intended for parties to re-examine witnesses to fill gaps or introduce new evidence. The exercise of this power is at the court's discretion and must be done sparingly, ensuring fairness and preventing misuse. Therefore, when filing such petitions, parties should clearly specify the material doubts or issues requiring clarification, and courts should scrutinize such applications carefully to prevent unwarranted re-examinations.

Recall Witness Under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC: Key Guide

In civil litigation in India, managing evidence effectively is crucial. Imagine this scenario: We Filed a Petition under Order Xviii Rule 17 for Recall. This common query arises when parties seek to bring back a witness after initial testimony to address lingering doubts. But does the court always grant such requests? Not necessarily. Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, empowers courts to recall witnesses, but only under strict conditions. This blog post breaks down the legal framework, key principles, judicial insights, and practical tips to help you navigate this provision. Note: This is general information based on established case law and should not be considered specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.

Legal Framework of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC states: Court may recall and re-examine witness. This provision allows a court to recall any witness who has been examined at any stage of the suit. However, its primary purpose is to clarify doubts arising from the evidence already recorded, not to fill gaps or omissions in the party's case. Dipankar Barua VS Nikash Barua - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1256 - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1256

As highlighted in judicial interpretations, Order XVIII Rule 17 of the code of civil procedure is primarily a provision enabling court to clarify any issue or doubt. Dipankar Barua VS Nikash Barua - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1256 - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1256 This underscores that the rule is not a tool for second chances on evidence presentation but a mechanism for judicial clarity.

The power is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. Courts emphasize that it should not be invoked routinely, especially not merely because recall would not cause any prejudice to the parties. K. DEVARAJAN vs S. LOGANATHAN - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73065 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73065 In fact, The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. K. DEVARAJAN vs S. LOGANATHAN - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73065 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73065

Key Principles Governing Witness Recall

Courts apply several core principles when deciding recall applications under Order XVIII Rule 17:

Purpose Limited to Clarification: Recall is permitted only for resolving genuine doubts post-examination, not to address omissions or introduce new evidence. Shashi Sehdev VS Narender Kumar Sharma - Delhi Sunita Devi VS Raj Kumar Singhal - Delhi
Judicial Discretion and Sparing Use: The court holds wide discretion, but it must prevent failure of justice without prolonging trials unnecessarily. This power is exercised sparingly. Hari Krishan @ Krishan VS Satish Kumar Sharma - Himachal Pradesh North East Transmission Co. Ltd. VS Narayan Chandra Roy - Tripura
No Prejudice Argument Insufficient: Simply claiming no harm to the opposite party does not justify recall. Ram Rati VS Mange Ram - Supreme Court Bharat Chugh VS M. C. Agrawal Huf - Delhi
Distinction from Inherent Powers: While Section 151 CPC allows reopening evidence in rare cases, it is separate from Order XVIII Rule 17. Mathew Lawrence, S/o. Late Lawrence VS Rockey C. Neroth, S/o. Late Neroth Chandy - Kerala

Additionally, recall applications often arise during evidence recording, such as to mark documents missed earlier. For instance, in one case, plaintiffs filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 to recall PW-1 for marking documents filed with the petition. Yellapu Venkata Rao VS Davuluri Satyavathi - 2022 Supreme(AP) 711 - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 711

Conditions and Limitations for Recall

Successful recall hinges on meeting specific conditions:- Genuine Doubt or Issue: There must be a clear, unresolved doubt from prior testimony. Courts reject applications aimed at filling evidentiary lacunae. Sunita Devi VS Raj Kumar Singhal - Delhi Uppala Veera Raghavamma Kumri Jyothi VS Rayudu Durgarao - Andhra Pradesh Daggubati Venkatesh vs W3 Hospitality Services Private Limited - Telangana- Exceptional Circumstances: Allowed if counsel's absence led to incomplete examination, ensuring no party suffers due to lawyer's fault. North East Transmission Co. Ltd. VS Narayan Chandra Roy - Tripura- Timeliness: Delayed filings risk dismissal as dilatory tactics. Union of India VS P. Gunasekaran - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 813 SRI BAURIBANDHU MOHANTY VS SRI SURESH CHANDRA MOHANTY - Orissa

Recall is not for re-cross-examination or new material. In a case, an application to recall Defendant Witness No. 1 for further cross-examination was rejected. Periamma @ Darga Peeranamma Since dead by her LRs. Noorunnisa VS Karnataka State Board of Wakfs Rep. by its Chairman - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 1548 - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1548

Judicial summaries reinforce: Recall is permissible when there is a genuine doubt remaining after the initial examination, or in exceptional cases where clarification is essential. It is not meant for parties to re-examine witnesses to fill gaps or to introduce new material. Sunita Devi VS Raj Kumar Singhal - Delhi Uppala Veera Raghavamma Kumri Jyothi VS Rayudu Durgarao - Andhra Pradesh Vitta Kristappa(died) rep. by LRs vs E. Guru Reddy - Andhra Pradesh

Case Law Insights: When Courts Grant or Deny Recall

Indian courts, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, have shaped the application of Order XVIII Rule 17 through precedents:

Dismissals: Common Scenarios

Applications dismissed when prior cross-examination was adequate, or new counsel sought recall without strong grounds. Shashi Sehdev VS Narender Kumar Sharma - Delhi
Rejections for delays or perceived delays in proceedings. Union of India VS P. Gunasekaran - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 813 SRI BAURIBANDHU MOHANTY VS SRI SURESH CHANDRA MOHANTY - Orissa
In one instance, petitioners sought to reopen evidence and recall PW-1 under Order XVIII Rule 17 for marking documents, but faced scrutiny. Gogineni Srinivasa Rao VS Gogineni Jogaiah - 2020 Supreme(AP) 630 - 2020 0 Supreme(AP) 630

Grants: Exceptional Cases

Allowed when counsel's absence prejudiced the party, prioritizing justice. North East Transmission Co. Ltd. VS Narayan Chandra Roy - Tripura
Petitions under Order XVIII Rule 17/17A for recalling witnesses have been filed alongside others for additional documents, but success depends on merits. Nilbhan VS Union of India - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 1345 - 2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 1345 Musstt Nilbhan VS Union Of India - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 828 - 2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 828

The Supreme Court in cases like Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate held that the power is sparingly exercised, not to fill procedural gaps. Sunita Devi VS Raj Kumar Singhal - Delhi Daggubati Venkatesh vs W3 Hospitality Services Private Limited - Telangana

Further, applications post-order, like recalling an order dated 14th December, 2021, under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151, were dismissed. Bharat Investment Corporation VS Sanjana Saini - 2022 Supreme(Del) 370 - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 370

Courts have consistently held that Order XVIII Rule 17 should be exercised sparingly. The main aim is to clarify evidence, not to enable parties to re-examine witnesses for their benefit. Sunita Devi VS Raj Kumar Singhal - Delhi Uppala Veera Raghavamma Kumri Jyothi VS Rayudu Durgarao - Andhra Pradesh Daggubati Venkatesh vs W3 Hospitality Services Private Limited - Telangana Sardar Vallabhhbai Patel National Police Academy vs Kaling Corp. rep. by Mr.Jai Kumar - Telangana

Practical Recommendations for Filing a Recall Petition

If considering a petition under Order XVIII Rule 17:- Clearly Articulate Doubts: Specify exact points needing clarification, avoiding any hint of filling gaps.- Justify Delays: Provide strong reasons to counter dilatory claims.- Demonstrate Necessity: Show how recall prevents justice failure without prejudice or prolongation.- Prepare Evidence: Align with case facts and precedents; distinguish from Section 151 if needed.

Be ready for opposition arguments on adequacy of prior examination. Courts dismiss where purpose seems to re-open evidence arbitrarily. Baswa Venkateswara Rao vs Padala Builibhami Reddy - Andhra Pradesh Gundluru Sreenivasulu, S/o Late Subbachari VS Gundluru Bhagyamma, W/o Late Subramanyam Achari - Andhra Pradesh

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC serves as a vital but limited tool for witness recall, focused on clarification rather than correction. Courts wield it sparingly to balance justice and efficiency, rejecting misuse for evidentiary shortfalls. Key takeaways:- File only for genuine doubts, not omissions.- Expect scrutiny on timeliness and intent.- Leverage exceptional circumstances like counsel lapses.- Always tailor to your case's context.

For those who've filed such a petition, outcomes depend on judicial discretion and alignment with precedents. This provision ensures trials remain fair without endless revisits. Stay informed, but seek professional legal counsel for personalized strategy.

References: Shashi Sehdev VS Narender Kumar Sharma - Delhi Sunita Devi VS Raj Kumar Singhal - Delhi Mathew Lawrence, S/o. Late Lawrence VS Rockey C. Neroth, S/o. Late Neroth Chandy - Kerala Ram Rati VS Mange Ram - Supreme Court Hari Krishan @ Krishan VS Satish Kumar Sharma - Himachal Pradesh North East Transmission Co. Ltd. VS Narayan Chandra Roy - Tripura Union of India VS P. Gunasekaran - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 813 SRI BAURIBANDHU MOHANTY VS SRI SURESH CHANDRA MOHANTY - Orissa K. DEVARAJAN vs S. LOGANATHAN - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73065 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73065 Dipankar Barua VS Nikash Barua - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1256 - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1256 Yellapu Venkata Rao VS Davuluri Satyavathi - 2022 Supreme(AP) 711 - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 711 Bharat Investment Corporation VS Sanjana Saini - 2022 Supreme(Del) 370 - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 370 Gogineni Srinivasa Rao VS Gogineni Jogaiah - 2020 Supreme(AP) 630 - 2020 0 Supreme(AP) 630 Nilbhan VS Union of India - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 1345 - 2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 1345 Musstt Nilbhan VS Union Of India - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 828 - 2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 828 Periamma @ Darga Peeranamma Since dead by her LRs. Noorunnisa VS Karnataka State Board of Wakfs Rep. by its Chairman - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 1548 - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 1548 Uppala Veera Raghavamma Kumri Jyothi VS Rayudu Durgarao - Andhra Pradesh Daggubati Venkatesh vs W3 Hospitality Services Private Limited - Telangana Vitta Kristappa(died) rep. by LRs vs E. Guru Reddy - Andhra Pradesh Sardar Vallabhhbai Patel National Police Academy vs Kaling Corp. rep. by Mr.Jai Kumar - Telangana Baswa Venkateswara Rao vs Padala Builibhami Reddy - Andhra Pradesh Gundluru Sreenivasulu, S/o Late Subbachari VS Gundluru Bhagyamma, W/o Late Subramanyam Achari - Andhra Pradesh

#OrderXVIIIRule17, #CPCLaw, #WitnessRecall

Baswa Venkateswara Rao vs Padala Builibhami Reddy - 2025 Supreme(AP) 585

The defendant filed I.A.No.226 of 2024 under Order XVIII Rule 17A CPC to recall him to mark documents and the same was allowed on 06.03.2024. ... The defendant filed I.A.No.818 of 2024 under Order XVIII Rule 17 to recall him for marking certain documents and I.A.No.819 of 2024 to receive documents.....

Vitta Kristappa(died) rep. by LRs vs E. Guru Reddy - 2025 Supreme(AP) 172

Constitution of India against the order dated 20.12.2024 allowing I.A.No.222 of 2024 in O.S.No.4 of 2011, on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, filed under Order XVIII, rule 17 C.P.C r/w Section 151 C.P.C to recall PW2 to PW4 for the purpose of cross-examination ... It was further argued that the power under Order ....

Daggubati Venkatesh vs W3 Hospitality Services Private Limited - 2025 Supreme(Telangana) 88

That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC . 17. ... , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under “ In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of witnesses, the main purpose of the said Rule is to enable ....

Sardar Vallabhhbai Patel National Police Academy vs Kaling Corp. rep. by Mr.Jai Kumar - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 41735

petitions filed by the petitioners herein under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and under Order XVIII, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) respectively, to reopen the evidence and recall of the PW-1 for further cross-examination, were dismissed. ... Unfortunately, the High Court taking note of the words “at any stage” occurring in O....

Yellapu Venkata Rao VS Davuluri Satyavathi - 2022 Supreme(AP) 711

During the pendency of recording of evidence plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1349 of 2017 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to recall PW-1 for the purpose of marking documents which were filed along with petition. ... In the light of these facts, the contention of the revision petitioners that the learned trial Court dismissed th....

Gundluru Sreenivasulu, S/o Late Subbachari VS Gundluru Bhagyamma, W/o Late Subramanyam Achari - 2022 Supreme(AP) 495

4) I.A.No. 38 of 2022 under Sec 151 CPC to receive Additional Chief Examination and (5) I.A.No. 39 of 2022 under Order 18 Rule 17 to recall P.W.1. ... At that point of time, defendant Nos. 5 and 6 filed (1) I.A.No.35 of 2022 under Order VIII Rule 1(A) and Section 151 of CPC to receive documents (2) I.A.No. 36 of 2022 under Order 18 Rule#HL_EN....

Bharat Investment Corporation VS Sanjana Saini - 2022 Supreme(Del) 370

Said application has come to be dismissed by the learned ARC vide order dated 4th March, 2022. 8. The petitioner moved an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking recall of the aforesaid order dated 14th December, 2021.

Gogineni Srinivasa Rao VS Gogineni Jogaiah - 2020 Supreme(AP) 630

The petitioners are the plaintiffs, whereas, respondents were the defendants in O.S. No. 220 of 2013. 2. The petitioners filed civil revision petition to reopen the evidence of the plaintiffs and to recall P.W.-1 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C. for marking documents.

Nilbhan VS Union of India - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 1345

The petition No. 1102 dated 10.08.2018 was filed under the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17/17A for recalling and the examining witness. The petition No. 1101 was under the provisions Order VIII Rule 9 read with Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for allowing her to file her additional written statement and for producing additional documents.

Musstt Nilbhan VS Union Of India - 2019 Supreme(Gau) 828

The petition No. 1101 was under the provisions Order VIII Rule 9 read with Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for allowing her to file her additional written statement and for producing additional documents. The petition No.1102 dated 10.08.2018 was filed under the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17/17A for recalling and the examining witness.

Periamma @ Darga Peeranamma Since dead by her LRs. Noorunnisa VS Karnataka State Board of Wakfs Rep. by its Chairman - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 1548

4. The petitioner filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code seeking recall of Defendant Witness No. 1 for further cross examination. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner in CRP No. 49/2018. The aforesaid application was rejected by an order dated 21.11.2017.