Essence of the Decision: Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC cannot be used by a party to reopen evidence or recall witnesses to fill omissions, lacunae, or improve its case after closure of evidence.
Facts
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration of title, cancellation of sale deeds, and permanent injunction. After completion of evidence and when final arguments had substantially concluded, they filed applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, Order VII Rule 14 CPC, and S.151 CPC to recall PW-1, reopen evidence, and produce additional documents relating to house numbers. The Trial Court allowed the applications, and the High Court modified the order by directing recall of PW-1 and marking of documents within a fixed timeline. The defendant challenged these directions before the Supreme Court.
Issues Framed
Whether the courts below were justified in permitting recall of PW-1, reopening of evidence, and production of additional documents under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, Order VII Rule 14 CPC, and S.151 CPC after closure of evidence and during final arguments.
Court's Reasoning
(a) Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is a power vested in the court to clarify doubts arising from evidence already recorded. It is discretionary and is not intended to permit parties to improve or supplement their evidence.
(b) Relying on Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar, K.K. Velusamy, Bagai Construction, Shubhkaran Singh, Gayathri, and Ram Rati, the Court reiterated that recall of witnesses cannot be used to fill omissions, lacunae, or introduce evidence available earlier. Such power must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
(c) The plaintiffs had already examined four witnesses and marked thirty-five exhibits. The documents sought to be produced were available earlier and the applications were filed only after the trial had virtually concluded. The Court found the applications to be an attempt to cure deficiencies in the evidence already led.
(d) The Court rejected the reasoning that reopening evidence caused "no prejudice" to the opposite party, holding that absence of prejudice is not a valid ground for invoking Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. There must exist an independent legal justification. The High Court also erred in directing cross-examination of PW-1, as the provision empowers only the court to recall and examine a witness, not to reopen cross-examination by parties.
Held
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order dated 15.09.2023, and held that the Trial Court and High Court had illegally exercised powers under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. The interlocutory applications consequently stood dismissed.
Ratio
Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is a discretionary power intended only to enable the court to clarify evidence; it cannot be invoked to reopen evidence, recall witnesses, or produce additional material for filling gaps, omissions, or lacunae after evidence has closed.
Relevant Para
Para 6.1
"The parameters for invocation and use of Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC, are thus well-established. It is not meant for a routine exercise. Nor it is a provision which can be employed on mere asking by a party, unless the court wants any clarification on any aspect of the evidence already led in the proceedings. Though the provision could be invoked at the instance of a party to the suit, basically and essentially it is the discretionary power to be exercised by the court itself. This provision can be put into play neither by the party nor by the court itself to permit to fill up the gaps, omissions or lacunae in the evidence."
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 795
Decided on: 04 August 2026
Case Title: K. Bharathamma v. Bandaru Sakku Bai & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: S.V.N. Bhatti, J.; N.V. Anjaria, J.