TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aforesaid question arises in respect of a suit filed by one Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar and Smt. Mainabai Ranade, being Suit No. S. 925 of 1990, before the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, seeking a declaration that the Letters of Administration obtained by one Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate on 5th November, 1998, in respect of the estate of Dr. Sudha Gogate, was not binding on the plaintiffs or any of them and did not affect their right, title and interest in the suit property, being Flat No. 402, situated in Amogh Vikram Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Murari Ghag Marg, Prabhadevi, Bombay 400025. Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record in his place. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Senior Advocate, Mr. P.S. Narasimha, who appeared for the appellant, briefly submitted that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC were very wide and could be made at any stage to enable the Court to do complete justice between the parties. For the sake of reference, the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC are reproduced hereinbelow: 17. Court may recall and examine witness. - The Court may, at any stage of suit, recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force), put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. 6. Mr. Narasimha also submitted that it has been held by way of judicial pronouncements that the Court may recall and examine a witness not only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-judicial approach or bias or partiality on the part of the Trial Court merely because in the exercise of its discretion another Court might have taken a different view and allowed the application. Mr. Narasimha submitted that, in other words, an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC should not be rejected as a matter of course, unless it was shown that such an application was moonshine, flimsy or irrational. 8. Mr. Narasimha then referred to a Single Bench decision of the Madras High Court in S.S.S. Durai Pandian v. Samuthira Pandian AIR 1998 Mad 323 in which it had been held that under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, the Court could not only recall a witness on its own but also on an application made by the defendants. Similar views were expres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing proposed to be included in his evidence, and that the same had been held to be impermissible. Mr. Jadhav also contended that the power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, though giving wide power to the Court to recall any witness at any stage of a suit in order to examine him/her, was also meant to be exercised sparingly so that after the examination and cross-examination of a witness, the said witness was not utilized for filling up the gaps in the evidence of the witness which had been elicited during cross-examination. 12. Mr. Jadhav submitted that both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court had rightly dismissed the appellants' application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and the orders did not merit any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. As indicated by the learned Single Judge, the evidence now being sought to be introduced by recalling the witness in question, was available at the time when the affidavit of evidence of the witness was prepared and affirmed. It is not as if certain new facts have been discovered subsequently which were not within the knowledge of the applicant when the affidavit evidence was prepared. In the instant case, Sadanand Shet was shown to have been actively involved in the acquisition of the flat in qu....