Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 628
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.12012-12013/2025
SHUBHKARAN SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ABHAYRAJ SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
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.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2025.05.06
10:13:33 IST
Reason:
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
2
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
3
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
CPC 17 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
4
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 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
5
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.
…………………………………………J
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
…………………………………………J
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI
5TH MAY, 2025.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 628
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.12012-12013/2025
SHUBHKARAN SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ABHAYRAJ SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
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.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2025.05.06
10:13:33 IST
Reason:
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
2
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
3
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
CPC 17 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
4
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 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
5
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.
…………………………………………J
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
…………………………………………J
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI
5TH MAY, 2025.