SHUBHKARAN SINGHversusABHAYRAJ SINGH & ORS.

           [2025] 6 S.C.R. 601 : 2025 INSC 628

                    Shubhkaran Singh
                             v.
                   Abhayraj Singh & Ors.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 12012-12013 of 2025)
                           05 May 2025
        [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Whether the petition filed by the petitioner herein u/Or.18 Rule 17,
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rightly rejected by the High
Court.

                            Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.18, r.17 – Court may recall
and examine witness – Power under – Scope – High Court
rejected the petition filed by the petitioner u/Or.18, r.17 –
Correctness:
Held: Power to recall and re-examine a witness is exclusively
that of the court trying the suit – Parties to the suit cannot take
any objection to the question asked nor can they be permitted to
cross-examine any witness without the leave of the court – The
right to put questions to the witness recalled u/r.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 – Therefore, u/r.17 a witness cannot be recalled at the
instance of a party for examining, cross examining or re-examining –
However, if circumstances warrant, an opportunity to a party to
re-call a witness for examining, cross-examining or re-examining
can be granted by a Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
u/s.151, CPC – Power u/Or.18, r.17 is to be used for removing
ambiguities, for clarifying the statement and not for filling up the
lacuna in a party’s case – This power should be used sparingly
and in exceptional cases only – SLPs dismissed – Evidence Act,
1872 – s.165. [Paras 7, 8, 10, 13]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.18, r.17 – Court may recall
and examine witness – Power u/Or.18, r.17 – Scope and exercise
of. [Paras 7, 8, 12]
602                                                          [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                               Case Law Cited
       Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate
       [2009] 2 SCR 1071 : (2009) 4 SCC 410; K.K. Velusamy v.
       N. Palanisamy [2011] 4 SCR 31 : (2011) 11 SCC 275 – referred to.
       Sultan Saleh Bin Omer v. Vijayachand Sirmal, AIR 1966, AP
       295 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Evidence Act, 1872.

                              List of Keywords
       Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Power
       to recall and re-examine a witness; Witness recalled under Order
       18 Rule 17; Right to put questions given only to the court; Cross-
       examination of witness; Without the leave of the court.

                             Case Arising From
       EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
       Petition (Civil) No(s). 12012-12013 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2025 and 27.02.2025
       of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur
       in MP No. 7264 of 2024 and RP No. 117 of 2025 respectively

                          Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Petitioner:
       Md. Naushad Alam, Sandeep Kumar Pathak, Vinit Upadhyay,
       Saurabh Kansal.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Order

1.     Exemption Application is allowed.
2.     Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3.     This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of
       Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 7-1-2025 in Miscellaneous Petition
       No.7264/2024 by which the petition filed by the petitioner – herein
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                           603

               Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh & Ors.


     under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure
     Code (for short, “CPC”) came to be rejected.
4.   It appears that the petitioner – herein also preferred a Review Petition
     No.117/2025. The Review Petition came to be rejected vide Order
     dated 27-2-2025.
5.   In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks to challenge both the
     orders referred to above.
6.   Order 18 Rule 17 reads as under:-
           “17. The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness
           who has been examined and may (subject to the law of
           evidence for the time being in force) put such questions
           to him as the Court thinks fit.”
7.   This Rule provides the Court with a power which is necessary for the
     proper conduct of a case. If it appears to a court trying the suit at
     any stage of the proceedings that it is necessary to recall and further
     examine a witness it can always do so. This power can be exercised
     even at the stage of writing a judgment by the court. It is, however,
     proper that this power should not be exercised lightly and the rule is
     that it should be used sparingly and in exceptional cases only. The
     power is 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. It is
     true that the power can be exercised by the Court at its own initiative
     and may even be so done at the instance of a party. Section 165 of
     the Evidence Act provides that a Judge may in order to discover or
     obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases
     in any form at any time of any witness about any fact relevant. The
     section further provides that the parties shall not be entitled to make
     any objection to any such question, nor cross-examine any witness
     upon any answer given in reply to any such question without the leave
     of the Court. If the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 are read along with
     the provisions of Section 165 of the Evidence Act it is clear that the
     power to recall and re-examine a witness is exclusively that of the
     court trying the suit. The parties to the suit cannot take any objection
     to the question asked nor can they be permitted to cross-examine
     any witness without the leave of the court.
8.   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
604                                                          [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       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.
9.     In this connection, we may refer to the following observations in
       Sultan Saleh Bin Omer v. Vijayachand Sirmal [A.I.R. 1966, A.P. 295.],
       which accords with the above view:
            “A close reading of this rule makes it obvious that the right
            under that Rule to put question at any stage or a suit or
            recall any witness for that purpose, is given to the Court.
            The court can put questions to the witness recalled, and no
            cross-examination is ordinarily allowed upon the answers
            to the questions put by the Judge without leave…….. It
            cannot therefore be said that an opportunity to a party to
            recall any witness for the purpose of examining cross-
            examining or re-examining is governed by O. 18, R. 17
            C.P.C. ………..”
10. We are of the opinion that if circumstances warrant, an opportunity
    to a party to re-call a witness for examining, cross-examining or re-
    examining can be granted by a Court in the exercise of its inherent
    jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C.
11. This Court in the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra
    Prabhakar Gogate, reported at (2009) 4 SCC 410 more particularly
    para 28 held as under:
            “28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17
            CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases
            and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his
            recall and reexamination would not cause any prejudice
            to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order
            18 Rule 17 CPC.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

12. In the case of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy reported at (2011)
    11 SCC 275, this Court discussed the power of the Court under
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                           605

               Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh & Ors.


     Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC. It was held that this power is only for
     clarification i.e. to enable Court to clarify any issue or doubt, it may
     have in regard to evidence led by parties by recalling any witness
     so that the Court itself can put questions to such witness and elicit
     answers. The relevant paras 9, 10 and 19 read as under:
           “9. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision
           intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for
           their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or
           to place additional material or evidence which could not
           be produced when the evidence was being recorded.
           Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily a provision enabling the
           court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness
           either suo motu, or at the request of any party, so that
           the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once
           a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it
           may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting
           some questions.
           10. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision
           intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for
           their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or
           to place additional material or evidence which could not
           be produced when the evidence was being recorded.
           Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily a provision enabling the
           court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness
           either suo motu, or at the request of any party, so that
           the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once
           a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it
           may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting
           some questions.

                    xxx                xxx                  xxx
           19. We may add a word of caution. The power under
           Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended
           to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it
           will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to
           the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is
           found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence,
           oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the
606                                                               [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


               evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice,
               and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was
               for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise
               its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh
               evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the
               process does not become a protracting tactic. The court
               should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to
               compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take
               up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so
               that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found
               to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence
               or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs.”
                                                       (Emphasis supplied)

13. In view of the position of law as explained aforesaid, the Special
    Leave Petitions stand dismissed.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Special Leave Petitions dismissed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey