NEW DELHI In a significant judgment on civil procedure, the Supreme Court has held that Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a discretionary power vested exclusively in the trial court to clarify its own doubts. The Court ruled that litigants cannot invoke the provision at the fag end of a trial to reopen evidence, plug evidentiary lacunae, or polish their case.
A Bench comprising Justices N.V. Anjaria and S.V.N. Bhatti set aside an order of the Telangana High Court that had permitted plaintiffs to recall a witness and submit additional municipal documents when final oral arguments in a 2010 land dispute were already past the halfway mark.
“No Prejudice” Is No Ground to Reopen Evidence
Writing for the Bench, Justice Anjaria rejected the rationale commonly relied upon by trial courts that reopening evidence causes “no prejudice” to the opposing party and can be compensated with costs.
“The theory of ‘no prejudice’ cannot be conveniently applied to justify invocation of the provision of Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC. Not the absence of prejudice but an independent justification must exist before the court can legitimately take resort to Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC,” the Bench emphasized.
The Court cautioned that allowing such late-stage applications turns procedural rules into a “handy tool” for dishonest litigants to prolong litigation and procrastinate trials.
No Statutory Right to Cross-Examine Recalled Witnesses
Addressing a crucial procedural error in the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court held that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC does not grant parties a right to cross-examine a recalled witness.
Endorsing the Bombay High Court’s landmark ruling in Balkrishna Shivappa Shetty v. Mahesh Nenshi Bhakta, the apex court clarified that Rule 17 (read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act) enables only the Judge to put clarifying questions to a witness. Parties cannot automatically demand cross-examination on answers given unless specific leave is granted by the court.
Case Background
The dispute involved a suit filed in 2010 by Bandaru Sakku Bai and others against K. Bharathamma, seeking a declaration of title over certain plots in R.R. District, Telangana. The defendant maintained she was a bona fide purchaser holding registered sale deeds since 1987.
After evidence on both sides was closed and final arguments had substantially progressed, the plaintiffs filed three Interlocutory Applications (I.As) under Order XVIII Rule 17, Order VII Rule 14, and Section 151 of the CPC to recall PW-1 and introduce additional municipal records regarding house numbers.
The Trial Court allowed the applications, and the Telangana High Court modified the order by imposing costs of 20,000 while directing completion of cross-examination within a fixed timeline.
Restoring the strict discipline of civil trials, the Supreme Court held that since the plaintiffs had earlier admitted that no structures existed on the property, the last-minute applications were merely delaying tactics to cure omissions in evidence practice strictly barred following the 2002 deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17A CPC.
Case Title: K. Bharathamma v. Bandaru Sakku Bai & Others Citation: 2026 INSC 795 Bench: Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice S.V.N.
Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a procedural provision that grants a civil court discretionary power to recall any previously examined witness at any stage of a suit to put clarifying questions to them. Designed strictly as an aid to help the judge clear up doubts or ambiguities in the existing record, it is a court-centric power rather than an automatic right of litigants. Higher courts have consistently held that Rule 17 must be exercised sparingly and cannot be used by a party to fill up gaps, plug omissions, or lead fresh evidence to repair a weak case especially at the stage of final arguments.
DLC Legal News & Knowledge 
Leave a comment