Courts may reopen evidence under Section 151 CPC to admit newly discovered, relevant material.

The petitioner’s matrimonial petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleged desertion and cruelty.

After both parties had concluded their evidence and the matter was set for final arguments, the respondent sought to recall the petitioner and three of his witnesses for further cross-examination and to lead evidence from Raman Kumar and Priya Rani.

She claimed recently to have learned that the petitioner had married Laxmi Devi during the subsistence of their marriage and had a daughter, Priya Rani, with her.

The trial court allowed the application and imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged that order.

The High Court noted that the respondent’s earlier complaint under Section 494 RPC concerned an alleged marriage to a different woman, Bholi Devi, and that documents filed with the application prima facie connected Priya Rani to the petitioner.

Whether the respondent could be permitted to lead additional evidence after closure of evidence under the court’s inherent power in Section 151 CPC.

Whether the petitioner and his witnesses could be recalled under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, and whether the trial court’s direction to recall all three witnesses was justified.

Whether the ₹10,000 costs imposed on the petitioner for allegedly concealing his second marriage could stand before that fact was established.

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC empowers a court to recall an examined witness, principally to clarify doubts in the evidence; it is to be exercised sparingly and is not a means for a party to fill evidentiary gaps or reopen examination as of right (*Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate*, 2009 (4) SCC 410; *K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy*, 2011 (11) SCC 275).

Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent power to reopen evidence or recall a witness for purposes beyond clarification where no specific provision governs the matter, provided the exercise is necessary for the ends of justice, bona fide, and not inconsistent with the Code.

That power may permit relevant evidence which a party could not earlier obtain, subject to appropriate terms.

The alleged marriage to Laxmi Devi and the documents linking Priya Rani to the petitioner made the proposed evidence potentially relevant to whether the respondent was justified in not joining the petitioner’s company and to her defence against the cruelty allegations.

The High Court therefore upheld permission to examine Raman Kumar and Priya Rani under Section 151 CPC and considered the petitioner’s recall appropriate to elicit information and clarify the evidence on that subject.

By contrast, the proposed recall of PWs Sansar Chand and Prem Nath was unnecessary because they had already stated that they knew nothing about the alleged second marriage.

The costs direction was premature: the alleged marriage and concealment had not yet been established.

The High Court set aside the order insofar as it imposed ₹10,000 costs and directed recall of PWs Sansar Chand and Prem Nath, but upheld the petitioner’s recall and the respondent’s permission to examine Raman Kumar and Priya Rani.

The trial court was directed to proceed consistently with the High Court’s observations.