Recall for further cross-examination may be refused after repeated opportunities and when sought at the arguments stage.

In brief

The question

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioners’ applications to set aside the order dated 13 March 2024 and recall DW1 for further cross-examination

The court held

The High Court held that the trial court was justified in rejecting I.A. Nos. 34 and 35 and declined to interfere with its order dated 6 August 2025.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed.

01Facts

The petitioners brought O.S. No. 230 of 2014 seeking declaration, injunction and recovery of possession concerning agricultural lands.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 4–5

After both sides led evidence, and when the matter was listed for the defendants’ reply arguments, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 34 to set aside the order dated 13 March 2024 and I.A. No. 35 to recall DW1 for further cross-examination.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 4–5

They stated that material questions concerning the relationship among the parties had not been put to DW1 during the earlier cross-examination.

¶ 3–5 · pp. 4–5

The trial court rejected both applications on 6 August 2025.

¶ 7–8 · p. 5

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 7–8 · p. 5

02Issues

i.Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioners’ applications to set aside the order dated 13 March 2024 and recall DW1 for further cross-examination

¶ 4, 7 · pp. 4–5

ii.Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the trial court’s refusal to recall DW1 at the stage of arguments

¶ 12–14 · pp. 7–8

03Law Applied

Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a court to recall a witness where the court considers it necessary, but the power is discretionary and is not intended to provide a party an opportunity to fill omissions in its evidence.

The court relied on Vadiraj Nagappa Varnekar (deceased) through LRs v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate, AIR 2009 SC 1604, in considering the recall application.

¶ 13 · p. 7

The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not warrant interference where the trial court’s exercise of discretion discloses no sufficient ground for intervention.

¶ 1, 14 · p. 4, 8

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

DW1 had already been cross-examined on five separate dates: 25 July 2023, 30 August 2023, 14 February 2024, 13 March 2024 and 6 June 2024.

¶ 13 · p. 7

The High Court considered the suit’s pendency since 2014, the stage at which the applications were made, and the prior unsuccessful application and writ petition concerning the proceedings.

¶ 11–12 · pp. 6–7

In those circumstances, it found that the trial court had properly exercised its discretion in refusing further cross-examination and that no ground for supervisory interference was made out.

¶ 13–14 · pp. 7–8