The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision rejecting an application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Court reiterated that the power to recall a witness under this provision is exclusively vested in the Court and must be used sparingly, only for clarification, not to fill lacunae in a party’s case.
The petitioner had filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, seeking recall of a witness. The High Court rejected the said application, following which a review petition was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition challenging both orders.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court and the High Court failed to appreciate the necessity of recalling the witness to clarify certain aspects vital to the case. It was submitted that the re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the other side and would serve the ends of justice.
The Apex Court carefully examined the scope of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, stating, “This Rule provides the Court with a power which is necessary for the proper conduct of a case. If it appears to a court at any stage of the proceedings that it is necessary to recall and further examine a witness, it can always do so. However, this power should not be exercised lightly and is to be used sparingly and in exceptional cases only.”
The Court further explained that, “The purpose of Order 18 Rule 17 is to remove ambiguities or to clarify statements, not for the purpose of examining, cross-examining, or re-examining a witness at the instance of a party. Such recall must be strictly by the Court's own initiative, unless exceptional reasons exist.”
Quoting its previous decisions in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate and K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, the Court emphasized, “Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is not intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination… it is primarily a provision enabling the Court to clarify any issue or doubt.”
It also reiterated that while the Court may act under its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC in appropriate cases, such discretion must be exercised with caution and only when necessary to assist in rendering justice.
In light of the settled position of law, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to make out a case warranting interference. It concluded that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 is not intended to remedy procedural lapses or omissions on the part of litigants, and the High Court had rightly rejected the application. All pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Title: Shubhkaran Singh vs. Abhayraj Singh & Ors.
Case No: Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos 12012-12013/2025
Coram: Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
Picture Source :
