Procedural lapses of counsel should not defeat substantial justice when recalling witnesses for cross-examination.

The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance and permanent injunction based on an alleged agreement to sell dated 07.08.2024 regarding a house in Vidisha.

The petitioners/defendants denied the execution of the agreement, claiming it was forged after they handed over original documents to the plaintiff for verification.

During the trial, the defendants' counsel cross-examined P.W.-1 only regarding Exhibit P/1, inadvertently omitting cross-examination on Exhibits P/2 to P/10.

The defendants moved an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC to recall P.W.-1 for further examination, which was rejected by the Third Additional Judge, Vidisha on 20.02.2026.

The petitioners challenged this rejection under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall a witness for further cross-examination due to an inadvertent mistake by counsel.

2. Whether procedural technicalities should override the interest of substantial justice when material evidence (Exhibits P/2 to P/10) remains untested.

The Court applied Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which govern the court's power to recall and examine witnesses.

Procedural laws are "handmaids of justice" and must be interpreted to subserve substantial justice rather than defeat it.

A litigant should not suffer for the bona fide inadvertent mistakes or lapses of their advocate.

The High Court observed that the omission to cross-examine P.W.-1 on Exhibits P/2 to P/10 was an inadvertent error by the defendants' counsel.

The Court reasoned that since these documents are already on record and are material to the adjudication of the suit, denying the defendants an opportunity to cross-examine on them would cause significant prejudice to their defense.

It held that the trial court failed to adopt a "liberal and justice-oriented approach".

By emphasizing that procedural rules should not be used to punish a party for a counsel's oversight, the High Court determined that a recall was necessary to ensure a fair trial and proper adjudication of the dispute.

The Court held that in the interest of justice, the petitioners deserve an opportunity to further cross-examine P.W.-1 regarding Exhibits P/2 to P/10.

The petition was allowed subject to the petitioners paying costs of ₹10,000 to the respondent within two weeks, upon which the trial court is directed to permit the cross-examination on a fixed date and proceed with the trial.