The request came after the evidentiary stage
The property suit had already reached final arguments. The plaintiffs sought to recall PW-1, reopen evidence and introduce documents relating to house numbers. Questions on those matters had already been asked in cross-examination, and earlier proceedings recorded that the relevant houses had collapsed. The Supreme Court examined both the stage of the litigation and the actual purpose the proposed evidence would serve. (Paragraphs 7–7.1.)
What the recall power is for
Order XVIII Rule 17 gives the court discretion to recall a witness for clarification. Read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, it does not give a party an unrestricted right to reopen examination or cross-examination. The Court emphasised that the power is not routine and cannot be used to fill omissions in evidence already completed. A party may draw the need for clarification to the court’s attention, but that is different from demanding a fresh evidentiary opportunity. (Paragraphs 5.1–6.2.)
Why the particular applications failed
The Court found that the applications sought to cure lacunae and would not serve the suggested purpose concerning the house numbers. The High Court’s direction for further cross-examination also exceeded the provision’s proper scope. The argument that nobody would suffer prejudice was not enough to supply the legal basis for reopening. The request to receive documents under Order VII Rule 14 and Section 151 was intertwined with the impermissible recall exercise. (Paragraphs 7.1–8.)
What the judgment does not decide
The decision concerns interlocutory evidentiary directions, not the final ownership merits of the property suit. It does not abolish the court’s recall power or decide that every late document must always be refused. Its point is that the actual statutory purpose and procedural setting matter. The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s impugned order. (Paragraphs 5–10.)
A question this judgment answers
Is saying that recall causes no prejudice enough?
Not in this case. The Court held that the absence of prejudice did not justify using Order XVIII Rule 17 to fill gaps in evidence. (Paragraph 7.5.)
Lawyers and appearances recorded by SCR
The following retains the source’s grouping and designations. It does not establish each lawyer’s role in every connected proceeding.
- Advs. for the Appellant(s):
- C. Mukund, Pankaj Jain, Bijoy Kumar Jain.
- Advs. for the Respondent(s):
- Mehmood Umar Faruqui, Md. Zeeshan Ali, Amit Pandey.
Procedural origin recorded by SCR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 10031-10033 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2023 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRP Nos. 458, 496, 621 of 2023