M/S.BAGAI CONSTRUCTION THR. ITS PROPRIETOR MR. LALIT BAGAI versus M/S. GUPTA BUILDING MATERIAL STORE

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 22-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 2 S.C.R. 116 
A MIS.BAGAI CONSTRUCTION THR. ITS PROPRIETOR MR. 
B 
LAUT BAGAI 
v. 
MIS. GUPTA BUILDING MATERIAL STORE 
(Civil Appeal No. 1787 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 22, 2013. 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Or. 7 r. 14 rlw s. 151 and 
c Or. 18 r. 17 rlw. s. 151 - Applications under - By the plaintiff -
To place documents on record and to recall witness to prove 
those documents - Filed after the arguments were over and 
case was adjourned for judgment - Held: The power under 
Order 18 r. 17 has to be sparingly exercised and not as a 
0 general rule to overcome lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and 
evidence - Therefore the applications are liable to be rejected 
- The plaintiff filed the applications to improve its case - The 
plaintiff did not file those documents at earlier stage despite 
the same were available with him throughout the trial -
E Therefore, the applications cannot be allowed even by 
exercise of jurisdiction uls. 151. 
Respondent filed a recovery suit against the 
appellant. After the arguments were concluded and the 
case was adjourned for judgment, he filed two 
F applications ulOr. 7 r. 14 r/w s. 151 CPC and u/Or. 18 r. 
17 r/w s. 151 CPC for production of documents (Bills) and 
recalling the witness to prove those documents 
respectively. Trial court dismissed the applications. High 
Court, in revision, set aside the order of trial court and 
G allowed the applications. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The power under the provisions of Order 
18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in 
H 
116 
BAGAI CONSTR. THR. ITS PROP. LAUT BAGAI v. 
117 
GUPTA BUILDING MATERIAL STORE 
appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the 
A 
ground that his recall and re-examination would not 
cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme 
or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. The power to recall 
any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be 
exercised by the court either on its own motion or on an 
B 
application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but such 
power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in the 
evidence of the witness which has already been recorded 
but to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen during 
the course of his examination. Hence the application filed c 
by the plaintiff has to be rejected. [Paras 8 and 9] [122-E-
G; 123-8] 
Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) through LRs. vs. · 
SharadchandraPrabhakar Gogate (2009) 4 SCC 410: 2009 
(2) SCR 1071 - relied on. 
D 
2. The plaintiff has filed the two applications before 
the trial Court in order to overcome the lacunae in the 
plaint, pleadings and evidence. It is not the.case of the 
plaintiff that it was not given adequate opportunity. In 
E 
fact, the materials placed show that the plaintiff has filed 
both the applications after more than sufficient 
opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. 
During the entire trial, those documents have remained 
in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still plaintiff has 
F 
not placed those bills on record. It further shows that 
final arguments were heard on number of times and 
judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order to 
improve its case, the plaintiff came forward with such an 
application to avoid the final judgment against it. The 
High Court taking note of the words "at any stage" G 
occurring in Order 18 Rule 17 CPC casually set aside the 
order of the trial court, allowed those applications and 
permitted the plaintiff to place on record certain bills and 
also granted permission to recall PW-1 to prove those 
bills. Though power u/s. 151 CPC can be exercised if H 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 2 S.C.R. 
A ends of justice so warrant and to prevent abuse of 
process of the court and court can exercise its discretion 
to permit reopening of evidence or recalling of witness 
for further examination/cross-examination after evidence 
led by the parties, in the light of the fact that those 
B documents were very well available throughout the trial, 
even by exercise of Section 151 of CPC, the plaintiff 
cannot be permitted. [Paras 11 and 12] [124-F-H; 125-A-
E-F] 
C 
K.K. Ve/usamy vs. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275: 
2011 (4) SCR 31 - referred to. 
3. After change of various provisions by way of 
·amendment in the CPC, it is desirable that the recording 
of evidence should be continuous and followed by 
D arguments and decision thereon within a 

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