Karnataka HC Upholds Refusal to Recall Witness After Partition Plaintiffs Failed to Cross-Examine Him Despite Repeated Chances

The petitioners, as plaintiffs in O.S. No. 195 of 2014, sought partition, separate possession and declarations concerning a sale deed and an earlier judgment and decree. After the parties led evidence, the suit was posted for final arguments. The petitioners then filed I.A. Nos. 19 and 20 to reopen the case and recall DW1 for further cross-examination; the Trial Court rejected both applications on 29 November 2024, prompting this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

DW1’s examination-in-chief was recorded on 6 December 2023. The Trial Court granted several opportunities for cross-examination, but the petitioners did not cross-examine DW1; on 22 July 2024, the cross-examination was recorded as nil and the matter was posted for final arguments.

The applications invoked Section 151 and Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while the petition sought supervisory relief under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court considered the request to reopen the proceedings and recall DW1 in light of the repeated opportunities already afforded and the petitioners’ failure to use them. The order cites no precedent or separately articulates a broader legal test for recalling a witness.

The Court noted that the suit had been pending since 2014 and that the petitioners had received multiple opportunities to cross-examine DW1, including adjournments and an adjournment on costs. Despite those opportunities, they did not proceed with the cross-examination, and the Trial Court eventually posted the matter for final arguments.

In those circumstances, the Court found no error in the Trial Court’s rejection of the applications and no basis to interfere under Article 227.

The writ petition was dismissed.