JEET MOHINDER SINGH versus HARMINDER SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 26-07-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

JEET MOHINDER SINGH 
A 
v. 
HARMINDER SINGH AND ANR. 
JULY 26, 2004 
[ARJJJT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908: 
Order XVIII, Rule I 7-Application to recall a witness styled as under 
Order XVI, Rule 3-Maintainability of-Held, though nomenclature of an C 
application is not material, and the substance is to be seen, yet duty is cast 
on parties to properly frame applications and quote provisions of law 
applicable with nomenclature in clear and precise manner-Liberty granted 
to file a fresh application in terms of Order XVIII, Rule I 7-Practice and 
Procedure. 
D 
In an election petition, an application was filed under Order XVI, 
Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with a prayer to recall a 
particular witness for the purpose of confronting him with a judgment 
passed in a different case. The High Court rejected the application 
holding that a witness could not be confronted with the judgment in E 
which there was reference to a previous statement. 
In the appeal before this court, it was contended for the appellant 
that though the application was styled as one under Order XVI, Rule 
3, but in essence it was a petition under Order XVII, Rule 17 CPC, F 
and, therefore, the prayer should have been accepted. 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
HELD : Though nomenclature of an application is really not 
material and the substance is to be seen, yet it cannot be said that a G 
party shall be permitted to indicate any provision and thereafter 
contend that the nomenclature should be ignored. Duty is cast on the 
parties to properly frame their applications and indicate the provisions 
of law applicable for making the application. There is a purpose in 
indicating the nomenclature in a clear and precise manner. The care H 
137 
138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A and caution required to be observed while making an application in 
the highest Court of the State are sadly missing in this case. In view 
of the accepted position that the application was not filed with care and 
caution and did not indicate the relevant provisions of law correctly, 
the appellant is permitted to file a fresh application in terms of Order 
B XVIII Rule 17 of the Code. (139-G-H; 140-A-B, E-F] 
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pane ham and 
Ors., AIR (1965) SC I 008, referred to. 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4437 of 
2004. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.2004 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in CM No. 5-E of 2004 in Election Petition No. 14 
of 2002. 
Ranjit Kumar, Raj K. Pandey and Kuldip Singh for the Appellant. 
K.G. Bhagat and Debasis Misra for the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. : Leave granted. 
In an Election petition, an application purported to be in terms of 
Order XVI Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 
F 'Code') was filed. The prayer was to recall PW-31-Surinder Pal Singh for 
the purpose of confronting him with the judgment already passed in a 
different case. The application was rejected by a learned Single Judge of 
the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground that a witness cannot 
be confronted with the judgment in which there is a reference to the 
G previous statement. It was further held that it would not be in the interest 
of justice to recall a witness again and again. 
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant 
submitted that though the application was styled as one under Order XVI 
H Rule 3, but in essence it was petition under Order XVJIJ Rule 17 of the 
J.M. SINGH v. HARMINDER SINGH [PASA YAT, J.] 
139 
Code and, therefore, the prayer should have been accepted. It was also A 
submitted that the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law. 
Mr. K.G. Bhagat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.I 
submitted that when a petition was filed under Order XVI Rule 3 of the 
Code, it is not open to the appellant to state that the petition was in essence B 
different and, therefore, the High Court rightly rejected it. It was, however, 
fairly accepted that in a given case the witness can be recalled for the 
purpose indicated. 
The prayers in the application styled as one under Order XVI Rule 
3 of the Code cannot by any stretch of imagination be encompassed by C 
the said provision. Order XVI Rule 3 deals with tender of expenses to 
witnesses. So far as the Punjab and Haryana High Court is concerne

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.