Case at a Glance
In a 2010 property suit in Telangana, after the plaintiffs’ evidence had closed and the defendant’s final arguments were over, the plaintiffs moved to recall their witness, reopen evidence and file more documents. The trial court allowed it saying no prejudice would be caused, and the High Court only fixed timelines and imposed Rs. 20,000 costs. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is a discretionary power of the court, not a tool for parties to fill lacunae, and that ‘no prejudice’ is not a valid ground to use it.
The plaintiffs filed Original Suit No. 489 of 2010 (renumbered O.S. No. 1302 of 2022) before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal–Malkajgiri District, seeking a declaration of ownership over three house properties in Ghatkesar village, a declaration that two 1987 sale deeds in favour of defendant No. 1 were void, and a perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs said they had lived there since 1970. Defendant No. 1, K. Bharathamma, claimed to have bought Plots 7 and 8 in 1987 and to have been in possession for over 23 years, relied on an injunction decree of 21 November 1990 in O.S. No. 348 of 1988, and denied that any house existed. Notably, in a 2017 application for an Advocate Commissioner, the plaintiffs had admitted in their counter that the houses collapsed in heavy rains in 2016.
PW-1 to PW-4 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A35 were marked. After the defendant’s final arguments concluded, the plaintiffs filed I.A. Nos. 716, 717 and 718 of 2022 to recall and reopen PW-1’s evidence and to receive further documents such as municipal records and demand registers. On 8 December 2022 the trial court allowed all three, accepting that the suit was at its “fag end” but holding no prejudice would be caused. By a common order dated 15 September 2023 in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 458, 496 and 621 of 2023, the Telangana High Court only modified this — fixing timelines for re-examination and cross-examination of PW-1 and directing the plaintiffs to pay Rs. 20,000 as costs. The defendant appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a trial court allow a party to recall its witness and reopen evidence under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to fill gaps after arguments are over, merely because the other side suffers no prejudice?
The Court’s Power, Not a Party’s Right
Justice N.V. Anjaria, writing for the Bench, explained that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 151 CPC, is a discretionary power vested in the court to aid adjudication, for example to clarify an ambiguity in a witness’s testimony. It is not meant for routine use or for a party’s benefit, and it cannot be used to fill omissions, gaps or lacunae in evidence already led. Quoting Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 02 SC CK 0202, the Court reiterated that the power “is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases”. It also drew on K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 03 SC CK 0082, Bagai Construction v. Gupta Building Material Store, (2013) 02 SC CK 0028, Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh, (2025) 05 SC CK 0289, Gayathri v. M. Girish, (2016) 07 SC CK 0009 and Ram Rati v. Mange Ram, (2016) 02 SC CK 0170.
Rejecting the trial court’s reasoning, the Court held: “Not the absence of prejudice but an independent justification must exist” before the court can resort to the provision. On the facts, the plaintiffs had already admitted that no houses existed after 2016, so recall and reopening would serve no purpose, and the applications appeared to be a delaying tactic. The High Court’s direction to complete PW-1’s cross-examination was, the Court said, “completely beyond the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC”, endorsing the Bombay High Court’s view in Balkrishna Shivappa Shetty v. Mahesh Nenshi Bhakta, (2003) 02 BOM CK 0066 that the rule does not permit recall for cross-examination. Since the prayer to file documents under Order VII Rule 14 was interwoven with these prayers, the directions as a whole could not stand.
What the Court Actually Held
- Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC confers a discretionary power on the court to aid adjudication; it is not available to a party as of right or for routine use.
- The provision cannot be used to fill omissions, gaps or lacunae in evidence already led, and the absence of prejudice to the other side is not a valid ground to invoke it.
- Order XVIII Rule 17 does not permit recalling a witness for cross-examination; the High Court’s direction on that was beyond the scope of the rule.
- The Telangana High Court’s common order dated 15 September 2023 was set aside and the appeals were allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Late applications to recall witnesses and reopen evidence are a common cause of delay in civil suits; this judgment gives trial courts a clear test.
- It rejects the convenient ‘no prejudice’ reasoning and demands an independent justification instead.
- It clarifies that Order XVIII Rule 17 is not a route to fresh cross-examination for either side.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Litigants
- Lead all your evidence and documents at the right stage; the Court made clear you cannot use Order XVIII Rule 17 later to cover gaps.
- If the other side tries to reopen evidence after arguments, you can resist it as a delaying tactic, as the defendant did here.
For Counsel
- Cite K. Bharathamma with Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate and K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy when opposing late recall applications.
- An application for documents under Order VII Rule 14 that is tied to an impermissible recall request may fall with it.
- Point the court to admissions on record that make the recall pointless; here the 2016 collapse admission was decisive.
Key Takeaways
- Order XVIII Rule 17 is the court’s tool, not a party’s right.
- No gap-filling and no ‘no prejudice’ shortcut.
- No recall for cross-examination under this rule.
- The 2010 suit returns to the trial court without the reopening of evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC?
It allows the court, at any stage of a suit, to recall a witness who has been examined and put such questions as it thinks fit. The Supreme Court described it as a discretionary power of the court to aid adjudication, to be sparingly exercised.
Can a party recall its own witness to add evidence it missed?
No. The Court held that the provision cannot be used to fill omissions, gaps or lacunae in evidence already led, and that the absence of prejudice to the other side does not justify it.
Can a witness be recalled under this rule for cross-examination?
No. The Court held a direction to complete cross-examination was completely beyond the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17, endorsing the Bombay High Court’s view on this point.
Conclusion
K. Bharathamma v. Bandaru Sakku Bai restores discipline to the evidence stage of civil trials. By insisting on an independent justification and refusing the ‘no prejudice’ shortcut, the Court protects parties who have completed their case from being dragged back into evidence at the very end of a decade-old suit.
Practical takeaway: Plan and complete your evidence on time; applications to recall or reopen after arguments will be tested strictly, and courts should refuse them where they only fill gaps or delay.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com