SHUBHKARAN SINGH [Petitioner(s)] Vs. ABHAYRAJ SINGH & ORS. [Respondent(s)]

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.12012-12013/2025

(2JB, J.B. PARDIWALA and R. MAHADEVAN JJ.)

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the limited scope and application of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), emphasizing that only the Court has the authority to put questions to a recalled witness, and cross-examination by parties is not ordinarily allowed without prior permission.

The case arose from a special leave petition challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had dismissed a plea under Rule 17 to recall a witness. A subsequent review petition was also rejected. The Supreme Court, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, upheld the High Court’s view and offered detailed legal reasoning behind its decision.

The Bench clarified that Order 18 Rule 17 grants the court the discretion to recall a witness at any stage of the trial—even during the writing of the judgment—if it deems further clarification necessary. However, this power is meant solely for the court’s use, not for the parties to bolster or plug gaps in their cases.

The judges explained that the provision should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, primarily to remove ambiguities or clarify doubts the court may have regarding evidence already presented. It is not a tool to re-open witness examination for parties, be it examination-in-chief, cross-examination, or re-examination, unless the court specifically grants such permission.

Additionally, the Bench referred to Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, which gives the judge broad authority to ask any question to a witness to uncover the truth, at any point during the trial. This section also restricts parties from objecting to such questions or cross-examining the witness’s responses unless the court permits.

By reading Order 18 Rule 17 in conjunction with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, the Court reinforced the view that the power to recall and question a witness rests exclusively with the court, and any such intervention by a party requires the court’s explicit leave.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court acknowledged that in certain situations, a party may be permitted to recall a witness for examination or cross-examination under the court’s inherent powers, as granted by Section 151 CPC. The Court referred to the precedent in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011), where it was held that Rule 17 is limited to the court’s own clarifications and is not intended to allow parties to re-open evidence.

Ultimately, finding no justification to interfere with the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions, thereby reinforcing the principle that Rule 17 is not a procedural loophole to be used by litigants, but a judicial tool for clarification.

This ruling serves as a critical reminder to litigants and legal practitioners that recall of witnesses must not be sought to fill evidentiary gaps and that judicial discretion must be respected in these procedural matters.