In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) does not grant any right to the parties involved in a case to recall a witness for further examination or cross-examination. This power rests solely with the court and is to be exercised only for the purpose of seeking clarification on any part of the witness’s testimony.
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had earlier dismissed an application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for the recall of a witness.
“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 to the court,” the Supreme Court stated.
The Court emphasized that the intent of Rule 17 is not to allow a party to fill gaps in their case or to add new evidence by recalling a witness. Rather, it serves as a procedural tool for the court itself to clarify ambiguities or doubts in a witness’s testimony.
“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,” the Court added.
Read also: Supreme Court Directs SCBA Elections on May 20; Reserves Secretary Post & 1/3rd EC Seats for Women
The Court further held that while cross-examination of such a witness is not ordinarily allowed, it can still be permitted under the court’s inherent powers as per Section 151 CPC, if the circumstances justify such an action.
“We are of the opinion that if circumstances warrant, an opportunity to a party to recall 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.,” the bench observed.
The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier ruling in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275, where it was clearly laid down that Order XVIII Rule 17 is meant only for clarifications. This includes situations where the court needs to ask further questions to understand any part of the evidence.
Read also: CLAT-UG 2025: Supreme Court to Hear Fresh Plea Against Delhi HC Judgment on Merit List Revision
“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,” the Court had said in the K.K. Velusamy case.
“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.”
Case Title: SHUBHKARAN SINGH VERSUS ABHAYRAJ SINGH & ORS.
