Advocate's Attempt to Recall Witness Rejected as Unnecessary Delay in Trial Proceedings Under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC

HC upheld Trial Court's decision denying recall of defendant witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. The Court found the plaintiff, an advocate, had already conducted extensive cross-examination and the application was an attempt to unnecessarily prolong the trial. The HC dismissed the petition, ruling that the witness was fully examined on relevant points and no further cross-examination was warranted.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

• Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking recall and re-examination of the defendant witness on the points of demarcation and diversion of the disputed land.
• Whether the refusal to allow further cross-examination of the defendant witness after his initial cross-examination and the plaintiff's own cross-examination amounted to an improper curtailment of the plaintiff's right to examine evidence.
• Whether the impugned order dismissing the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is liable to be quashed in exercise of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the Trial Court's dismissal of the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall and re-examine the defendant witness

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Order 18 Rule 17 CPC permits a party to recall a witness for further examination or cross-examination if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of justice. However, this provision is not to be used to prolong the trial unnecessarily or to fill gaps that could have been addressed during the initial examination or cross-examination. The Courts have consistently held that the right to recall is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court carefully examined the evidence on record, particularly the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the defendant witness Abhayraj Singh (DW-1). The defendant was examined-in-chief on 20.11.2024 and was cross-examined extensively by the plaintiff's counsel. Subsequently, the plaintiff himself, being an advocate, was permitted by the Trial Court to cross-examine the defendant witness further, which he did at length. The Trial Court noted that specific questions regarding demarcation and diversion of the disputed land were already put to the defendant during these cross-examinations (paras 8, 9, 10, and 14 of cross-examination).

Key evidence and findings: The Trial Court's order and the cross-examination transcript reveal that the defendant witness was fully examined on the relevant points, including the disputed demarcation and diversion issues. The plaintiff's subsequent application to recall the witness was therefore seen as an attempt to reopen evidence already thoroughly explored.

Application of law to facts: Applying the principles governing Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, the Court found that the Trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application. The plaintiff had adequate opportunity to cross-examine the defendant witness on all material points, including those now sought to be revisited. The attempt to recall the witness was viewed as a strategy to prolong the trial rather than a genuine need to clarify or supplement evidence.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the Trial Court's refusal to recall the defendant witness was erroneous because certain points of demarcation and diversion were not put during the initial cross-examination. However, the Court noted that the plaintiff, being an advocate, had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness himself after the counsel's cross-examination and had in fact done so extensively. This undermined the petitioner's contention that the witness was not fully cross-examined on the relevant issues.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Trial Court's order dismissing the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was neither improper nor illegal. The application was rightly rejected as it was an attempt to unnecessarily prolong the proceedings and did not meet the threshold for recalling a witness.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"It is apparent that defendant Abhayraj Singh was cross-examined fully and only thereafter he was discharged. Therefore, it is apparent that application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC filed by the plaintiff is nothing but an attempt to prolong the trial and fill up lacuna."

This statement encapsulates the Court's core legal reasoning that the right to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is not absolute but subject to judicial discretion exercised to prevent abuse of process.

The Court established the principle that once a witness has been fully examined and cross-examined on relevant points, an application to recall the witness for further cross-examination on the same issues can be refused to avoid unnecessary prolongation of trial.

On the final determinations:

• The impugned order dated 19/12/2024 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was upheld.
• The miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution was dismissed as devoid of merits.

---