Challa Lakshminarayana vs Madhira Preeti Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 811 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 811 Tel
Judgement Date : 17 February, 2023

Telangana High Court

Challa Lakshminarayana vs Madhira Preeti Reddy on 17 February, 2023

Bench: G.Radha Rani

         THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 394 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff

aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2022 passed in I.A. No.834 of 2022

and I.A. No.835 of 2022 in O.S No. 36 of 2017 on the file of the Principal

District Judge, Suryapet.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for

recovery of money. After completion of evidence by both the parties, the

defendant filed an application seeking framing of an additional issue as to

whether the plaintiff was possessing Money Lending Licence from

Telangana State Government. The same was allowed by the learned

Principal District Judge, Suryapet. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.

Nos.834 and 835 of 2022 seeking to reopen the suit proceedings and to

recall PW.3 to render further evidence. The said applications were

dismissed by the court vide the impugned common order, observing that

the plaintiff did not assign any reason for seeking recall of PW.3 except

stating that there were changed circumstances. It was for the plaintiff to

establish whether he was holding Money Lending Licence during the Dr.GRR,J C.R.P.No.394 of 2023

relevant period of transaction by producing documentary evidence and

recall of PW.3 would not serve any purpose and dismissed the petition.

3. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of his applications, the plaintiff

preferred this revision contending that the court below ought to have seen

that the petitioner-plaintiff had got a right to recall the witness PW.3 on

the additional issue so framed. The trial court ought to have seen that

holding of money lending licence would depend upon several factors. The

order of the trial court was against its own findings. The trial court ought

to have appreciated that some times in a suit of this kind, the

situation/circumstances might demand to allow such applications for

recalling of witnesses. No prejudice would cause to the defendant if the

said petitions were allowed. Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC would enable the

court to clarify any position or doubt and prayed to allow the revision.

4. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned

counsel for the respondents.

5. Both the learned counsel had relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Bagai Construction v. Gupta Building Material Dr.GRR,J C.R.P.No.394 of 2023

Store1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court referred its earlier judgment in

Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate

[(2009) 4 SCC 410], wherein it was held that:

"25. 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 the court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined.

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 re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.

29. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicated hereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination.

31. Some of the principles akin to Order 47 CPC may be applied when a party makes an application under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, but it is ultimately within the court's discretion, if it deems fit, to allow such an application. In the present appeal, no such case has been made out."

6. As seen from the facts of the case, the suit is filed for recovery

of money and the plaintiff got examined PWs.1 to 3 on his behalf. After

(2013) 14 SCC Dr.GRR,J C.R.P.No.394 of 2023

recording the evidence of both sides, at the stage of arguments, the

defendant had filed a petition for framing an additional issue. The said

application was also allowed by the court below. Thereafter only, the

plaintiff filed these applications for reopening the suit and for recalling

PW.3. The case law relied by both the learned counsel is not on the

aspect of recalling the witness after framing the additional issue. Even in

the case for recall of a witness, the main purpose of Order XVIII Rule 17

CPC is to enable the Court to clarify any doubts which might have with

regard to the evidence lead by the parties, but not intended to be used to