{"id":3135,"date":"2025-05-29T16:34:31","date_gmt":"2025-05-29T11:04:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=3135"},"modified":"2025-05-29T16:34:31","modified_gmt":"2025-05-29T11:04:31","slug":"sc-clarifies-order-18-rule-17-cpc-only-court-can-question-recalled-witness-cross-examination-requires-leave","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/sc-clarifies-order-18-rule-17-cpc-only-court-can-question-recalled-witness-cross-examination-requires-leave\/","title":{"rendered":"SC Clarifies Order 18 Rule 17 CPC: Only Court Can Question Recalled Witness, Cross-Examination Requires Leave"},"content":{"rendered":"

SHUBHKARAN SINGH<\/strong> [Petitioner(s)] Vs. <\/strong>ABHAYRAJ SINGH & ORS.<\/strong> [Respondent(s)]<\/h1>\n

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.12012-12013\/2025<\/p>\n

(2JB, J.B. PARDIWALA and R. MAHADEVAN JJ.)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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)<\/strong>, emphasizing that only the Court has the authority to put questions to a recalled witness<\/strong>, and cross-examination by parties is not ordinarily allowed without prior permission<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The case arose from a special leave petition challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order<\/strong> 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<\/strong>, upheld the High Court\u2019s view and offered detailed legal reasoning behind its decision.<\/p>\n

The Bench clarified that Order 18 Rule 17 grants the court the discretion to recall a witness at any stage of the trial\u2014even during the writing of the judgment\u2014if it deems further clarification necessary.<\/strong> However, this power is meant solely for the court\u2019s use<\/strong>, not for the parties to bolster or plug gaps in their cases.<\/p>\n

The judges explained that the provision should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances<\/strong>, 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<\/strong>, unless the court specifically grants such permission.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the Bench referred to Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act<\/strong>, 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\u2019s responses unless the court permits.<\/p>\n

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

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<\/strong>, as granted by Section 151 CPC<\/strong>. The Court referred to the precedent in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011)<\/em>, 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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

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

This ruling serves as a critical reminder to litigants and legal practitioners that recall of witnesses must not be sought to fill evidentiary gaps<\/strong> and that judicial discretion must be respected<\/strong> in these procedural matters.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3137,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3135"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3135\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3139,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3135\/revisions\/3139"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3137"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}