LAW FINDER
Licensed To: Harsh Sharma
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.
Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2726890
2025 INSC 628 : 2025(2) RCR(Civil) 775
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.12012-12013 of 2025. D/d. 05.05.2025.
Shubhkaran Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Abhayraj Singh and ors. - Respondents
For the Petitioner: Advocate, Md. Naushad Alam
IMPORTANT
The power under Order 18, Rule 17 of CPC is primarily meant for the court to recall a witness
for clarification, and not for parties to re-examine, cross-examine, or introduce additional
evidence. This power must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 18, Rule 17 - Scope of power to recall witnesses - Held, the
provision is meant for the court to clarify issues or doubts by recalling witnesses, either suo
motu or at the request of a party, so that the court itself can put questions and elicit answers -
It is not intended for parties to recall witnesses for examination-in-chief, cross-examination, or
re-examination - The power must be exercised sparingly and not as a matter of routine.
[Paras 7, 8, 12]
B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 151 and Order 18 Rule 17 - Exercise of inherent powers by
court - Held, courts have inherent jurisdiction under section 151 CPC to recall witnesses for
examining, cross-examining, or re-examining, but only under circumstances that warrant such
action - This jurisdiction should not be used routinely or for frivolous applications - Bona fide
applications that assist in clarifying evidence and rendering justice may be allowed with
appropriate safeguards, such as awarding costs to prevent misuse.
[Paras 10, 19]
C. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 18, Rule 17 - Restrictions on recalling witnesses - Held,
witnesses cannot be recalled under this rule at the instance of a party for purposes of
examination, cross-examination, or re-examination - The rule is strictly for the court's use to
clarify ambiguities in evidence or statements - Further, cross-examination on answers given
during recall requires leave of the court.
[Paras 8, 9]
E/MM/6/5/2025
Cases Referred :-
1/4
LAW FINDER
Licensed To: Harsh Sharma
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.
K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275
Sultan Saleh Bin Omer v. Vijayachand Sirmal, A.I.R. 1966 A.P. 295
Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410
Read impugned order dated 07.01.2025.
ORDER
Exemption Application is allowed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
dated 7-1-2025 in Miscellaneous Petition No.7264/2024 by which the petition filed by the petitioner -
herein under the provisions of Order 18, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, "CPC") came
to be rejected.
4. It appears that the petitioner - herein also preferred a Review Petition No.117/2025. The Review
Petition came to be rejected vide Order dated 27-2-2025.
5. In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks to challenge both the orders referred to above.
6. Order 18, Rule 17 reads as under:-
"17. The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may
(subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court
thinks fit."
7. This Rule provides the Court with a power which is necessary for the proper conduct of a case. If
it appears to a court trying the suit at any stage of the proceedings that it is necessary to recall and
further examine a witness it can always do so. This power can be exercised even at the stage of
writing a judgment by the court. It is, however, proper that this power should not be exercised
lightly and the rule is that it should be used sparingly and in exceptional cases only. The power is
to be used for removing ambiguities, for clarifying the statement and not for the purposes of filling
up the lacuna in a party's case. It is true that the power can be exercised by the Court at its own
initiative and may even be so done at the instance of a party. Section 165 of the Evidence Act
provides that a Judge may in order to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any
question he pleases in any form at any time of any witness about any fact relevant. The section
further provides that the parties shall not be entitled to make any objection to any such question,
nor cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question without the
leave of the Court. If the provisions of Order 18, Rule 17 are read along with the provisions of
Section 165 of the Evidence Act it is clear that the power to recall and re-examine a witness is
exclusively that of the court trying the suit. The parties to the suit cannot take any objection to the
question asked nor can they be permitted to cross-examine any witness without the leave of the
court.
8. The said rule, in our opinion, makes it abundantly clear that the right to put questions to the
witness recalled under Rule 17 is given only to the court and even cross-examination is not
ordinarily permitted on the answers given to such questions, without the leave of the court. Under
that rule therefore, a witness cannot be recalled at the instance of a party for the purpose of
2/4
LAW FINDER
Licensed To: Harsh Sharma
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.
examining, cross examining or re-examining, and that rule is not intended to serve such purpose,
and the purpose for which that rule can be invoked is the one that is indicated above.
9. In this connection, we may refer to the following observations in Sultan Saleh Bin Omer v.
Vijayachand Sirmal [A.I.R. 1966, A.P. 295.], which accords with the above view:
"A close reading of this rule makes it obvious that the right under that Rule to put question at
any stage or a suit or recall any witness for that purpose, is given to the Court. The court can put
questions to the witness recalled, and no cross-examination is ordinarily allowed upon the
answers to the questions put by the Judge without leave........ It cannot therefore be said that an
opportunity to a party to recall any witness for the purpose of examining cross-examining or re-
examining is governed by Order 18, Rule 17 C.P.C. ..........."
10. We are of the opinion that if circumstances warrant, an opportunity to a party to re-call a
witness for examining, cross-examining or re-examining can be granted by a Court in the exercise
of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C.
11. This Court in the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate,
reported at (2009) 4 SCC 410 more particularly para 28 held as under:
"28. 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
reexamination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention
of Order 18, Rule 17 CPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. In the case of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy reported at (2011) 11 SCC 275, this Court
discussed the power of the Court under Order 18, Rule 17 of CPC. It was held that this power is only
for clarification i.e. to enable Court to clarify any issue or doubt, it may have in regard to evidence
led by parties by recalling any witness so that the Court itself can put questions to such witness and
elicit answers. The relevant paras 9, 10 and 19 read as under:
"9. 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.
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.
xxx xxx xxx
19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code
3/4
LAW FINDER
Licensed To: Harsh Sharma
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.
is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very
purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found
to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to
clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that
non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion
to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the
process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to
the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the
case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found
to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with
heavy costs."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In view of the position of law as explained aforesaid, the Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
.
____________
© Chawla Publications (P) Ltd.
4/4
