In a judgment delivered on 5 May 2025, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Shubhkaran Singh. The Court upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), ruling that this provision cannot be invoked by parties to recall witnesses for re-examination. The Bench reaffirmed that the power under this rule lies solely with the court and is intended only for clarifying doubts, not for filling evidentiary gaps.
Background
The petitioner, Shubhkaran Singh, had moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 7264/2024 seeking the recall of a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. The High Court dismissed the petition on 7 January 2025. A subsequent Review Petition No. 117/2025 was also dismissed on 27 February 2025. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking to challenge both orders.
Arguments and Legal Issue
The central issue was whether a party can invoke Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall a witness for the purpose of examination, cross-examination, or re-examination.
Order 18 Rule 17 CPC states:
“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.”
The petitioner sought relief under this provision, which was denied by the High Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Bench referred to earlier judicial interpretations and reaffirmed that:
- The power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is vested in the court alone and should be exercised sparingly.
- It is primarily for clarifying ambiguities and not intended to allow parties to reopen evidence or rectify deficiencies in their case.
Quoting Sultan Saleh Bin Omer v. Vijayachand Sirmal [AIR 1966 AP 295], the Court noted:
“The right under that Rule to put question at any stage or recall any witness for that purpose, is given to the Court… 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 Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.”
Further, the Court clarified that while the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC may be invoked in exceptional situations to permit recalling a witness, such invocation must be bona fide.
Citing Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate [(2009) 4 SCC 410], the Court emphasised:
“The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised… and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and reexamination would not cause any prejudice to the parties.”
The Court also quoted K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy [(2011) 11 SCC 275] which highlighted that this rule is:
“Primarily a provision enabling the court to clarify any issue or doubt… Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions.”
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, holding that:
- The petitioner had no right under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to seek re-examination of the witness.
- The power to recall a witness under that provision lies solely with the court and must be used only for clarification and not for reopening the evidence.
All pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Title: Shubhkaran Singh vs Abhayraj Singh & Ors.
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
