TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a witness could be recalled under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at the instance of a party for further examination, cross-examination or re-examination, and whether such relief could nevertheless be considered under the Court's inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Order 18 Rule 17 is a limited procedural power meant for the Court to recall a witness for clarification, removal of ambiguities, or to enable the Court to put questions for proper adjudication. It is not a provision intended to permit a party to reopen evidence, fill up lacunae, or secure a fresh opportunity for examination, cross-examination, or re-examination as a matter of course. The power is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases. If circumstances justify it, a party may seek recall of a witness under the Court's inherent jurisdiction, but even then the request must be bona fide, necessary for clarification, and not a delaying or protracting tactic.
Conclusion: The request to recall the witness did not merit interference under Order 18 Rule 17, and no ground for relief was made out.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned orders failed, and the proceedings were brought to an end by dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a narrow clarificatory provision for the Court's use and cannot be employed by a party as a routine means to reopen evidence or fill gaps in its case; any exceptional recall must rest on bona fide necessity and the Court's discretion, including under its inherent powers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
