

Assamese    
Bookmark
Licensed to : Biraj M. Bordoloi Adv.

SLC - Daily Law - 96428

SUPREME COURT
DIVISION BENCH
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan JJ.
SHUBHKARAN SINGH
V/S
SHUBHKARAN SINGH
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 12012-12013/2025
Decided On : 05/05/2025
Law Point
Limited Scope of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC in Recalling Witnesses

The power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is intended for the court to recall a
witness solely for clarification, not for re-examination, cross-
examination, or introducing new evidence, and must be used sparingly in
exceptional circumstances.

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 18 Rule 17—Limited Scope—Recalling

Witnesses—Criminal Procedure—Power to Recall Witnesses under Section
311 CrPC—The power to recall witnesses under Section 311 of the Criminal
Procedure Code is intended to enable the court to clarify ambiguities or
doubts in evidence, either suo motu or on a party’s request—It empowers
the court to question witnesses directly for the purpose of eliciting
relevant facts—However, this provision is not to be misused by parties to
conduct a fresh examination-in-chief, cross-examination, or re-
examination—The Supreme Court reiterated that this power must be
exercised sparingly, judiciously, and only in the interest of justice, not as a
matter of routine or to fill gaps in evidence. (Paras 7, 8, 12)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 151 and Order 18 Rule 17—Scope and
Limits on Recall of Witnesses—Under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure
Code, courts possess inherent powers to recall witnesses for purposes of
examination, cross-examination, or re-examination—However, this
jurisdiction is not unbounded and must be exercised judiciously, only in
circumstances that genuinely warrant such intervention to prevent
miscarriage of justice—The provision is designed to serve the ends of
justice, not to accommodate routine or frivolous applications by parties—
Courts may entertain bona fide applications that aim to clarify evidence or
resolve ambiguities, provided adequate safeguards are implemented—
such as imposing costs—to deter abuse of process—Importantly, recall of
witnesses is primarily for the court’s own use to clarify any doubts or
inconsistencies in testimony and not intended as a tool for parties to re-
conduct examination-in-chief or cross-examination—Furthermore, if any
party seeks to cross-examine a witness recalled under this provision, prior
leave of the court must be obtained—The rule thus upholds procedural
integrity while ensuring fairness in adjudication. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 19)

Result : SLPs dismissed; recall power clarified with caution.

Acts Referred :-
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 18 Rule 17 , S.151

JUDGMENT

1. 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
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 O. 18, R. 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 1 7 CP C 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 1 7 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
crossexamination 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.
19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18
Rule 17 of the Code 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.

Result : Dismissed

Tomar Publication

561, Sec-2, Jagriti Vihar, Meerut-250004

0121 3561932, +91 9458 5523 61

[email protected]

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

© SLC Daily law all right reserved.