Inherent power to recall witnesses and allow further evidence continues until judgment in a civil suit

Order 18 Rule 17 does not exhaust the court's power to permit recall of a witness for cross-examination, re-examination, or rebuttal evidence where justice requires it, and such relief may also be granted under Section 151 CPC. The hearing of a suit is not concluded merely because evidence has closed and arguments are fixed; it continues until judgment is delivered or the suit is posted for judgment. Accordingly, before that stage, the court may permit additional evidence, though delay remains relevant to the exercise of discretion.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the power to recall or re-examine a witness for cross-examination or rebuttal evidence can be exercised under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court notwithstanding Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the hearing of a suit is concluded merely because evidence has been closed and the matter has been posted for arguments, so as to bar the Court from permitting additional evidence before judgment.

Issue (i): Whether the power to recall or re-examine a witness for cross-examination or rebuttal evidence can be exercised under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court notwithstanding Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Order 18, Rule 17 authorises the Court to recall a witness and put questions to him, but the power is one vested in the Court and is not confined to the Court acting only on its own motion. The provision does not exhaust the Court's power to permit a party to recall a witness for examination, cross-examination, or re-examination where justice requires it. In a fit case, such relief may be granted under the Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Court could, where circumstances warranted, permit recall of a witness and related examination under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether the hearing of a suit is concluded merely because evidence has been closed and the matter has been posted for arguments, so as to bar the Court from permitting additional evidence before judgment.

Analysis: The scheme of the Code shows that hearing of a suit includes both the reception of evidence and the hearing of arguments. There is no distinct procedural stage treating arguments as separate from the hearing. The hearing continues until judgment is delivered or the suit is posted for judgment. Therefore, before that stage is reached, a party is not precluded from seeking to adduce further evidence, though the belated nature of the request is relevant to the exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The suit was still at the hearing stage, and the trial Court was not acting without jurisdiction in allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to cross-examine the witness and adduce rebuttal evidence.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the order permitting further participation in evidence was within jurisdiction and was justified on the facts, subject to the directions made by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The hearing of a suit continues until judgment, and the Court may, in the exercise of its inherent powers, permit recall of a witness or additional evidence before that stage where the interests of justice so require.

---