https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290405 Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC does not permit recall of a witness to introduce fresh evidence, and Rule 17A applies only where evidence could not earlier be produced despite due diligence. A compromise petition that had not matured into a binding settlement, and which contained admissions made during failed negotiations, could not be used to prove those admissions on recall. Section 23 of the Evidence Act excludes statements made in settlement discussions when the parties intended they should not be used as evidence, treating them as without prejudice. The trial court was justified in refusing recall of the witnesses. en-us Tue, 23 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Sep 2020 17:12:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290405 Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC does not permit recall of a witness to introduce fresh evidence, and Rule 17A applies only where evidence could not earlier be produced despite due diligence. A compromise petition that had not matured into a binding settlement, and which contained admissions made during failed negotiations, could not be used to prove those admissions on recall. Section 23 of the Evidence Act excludes statements made in settlement discussions when the parties intended they should not be used as evidence, treating them as without prejudice. The trial court was justified in refusing recall of the witnesses. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290405