Recall Under Order 18 Rule 17 Is Primarily A Court's Power For Clarification, SLP Dismissed

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard a Special Leave Petition challenging an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur that rejected an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC seeking recall of a witness, and the subsequent review petition which the High Court also dismissed.

The Court held that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was primarily for the court's own use to clarify evidence and to remove ambiguities, and was not intended to enable parties to recall witnesses for the purpose of re-examination, examination-in-chief or routine cross-examination. The bench noted that Section 165 of the Evidence Act gave a judge the power to ask questions "in order to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts" and that Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 165 confirmed that "the power to recall and re-examine a witness is exclusively that of the court trying the suit." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 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." The bench reiterated that the power was "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." Applying these principles and relevant precedents, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions and disposed of pending applications.

Background The dispute arose from a miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner in the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC seeking recall of a witness. The High Court rejected the application on 7 January 2025 (Misc. Pet. No.7264/2024). The petitioner then filed Review Petition No.117/2025, which the High Court rejected on 27 February 2025. The petitioner approached this Court by SLP (C) Nos.12012-12013/2025 seeking to challenge both orders.

The Supreme Court reviewed the scope and purpose of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act, and considered earlier authorities including Sultan Saleh Bin Omer v. Vijayachand Sirmal (A.I.R. 1966 A.P. 295), Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate [(2009) 4 SCC 410] and K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy [(2011) 11 SCC 275]. The bench quoted and relied on those decisions to emphasise that the power to recall a witness was to be "sparingly exercised and in exceptional cases only" and primarily to enable the court to clarify issues or doubts in the evidence. The Court observed that, although in appropriate circumstances courts may exercise their inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to grant an opportunity to a party to recall a witness, Order 18 Rule 17 did not confer an unfettered right on parties to reopen evidence to fill lacunae in their case.

Concluding that the High Court had correctly applied the law and that no infirmity warranted interference, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. The order also disposed of pending applications.

Case No.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.12012-12013/2025 Case Title: Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the order For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the order