RAM RATI versus MANGE RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 23-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

r201612 S.C.R. 9 
RAM RAT! 
v. 
MANGE RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1684of2016) 
FEBRUARY 23, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order 18 r. 17-Application 
under - Scope of - Po11'er of the court u/r 17 is though discretionary, 
has to be used sparingly - The po11'er cannot he invoked to fill up 
the omission in the evidence already led by a 1Pitness, or for the 
purpose of filling up a lacuna in the evidence - 'No prejudice is 
caused to either party' also cannot be a ground to be invoked u/1: 
J 7 - ff the court invokes the poll'er u/r. J 7, it has to see that trial is 
not unnecessarily protracted on that ground - However, the rigour 
of r. 17 does not affect the inherem powers of the court - Jn the 
present case, the application ulr. 17 for fi1rther elaboration 011 the 
left out points is impermissible in law. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The basic purpose of Ruic 17 of Order 18 C.P.C. 
is to enable the court to clarify any position or doubt, and the 
court may, either .rno 1110/11 or on the request of any party, recall 
any witness at any stage in that regard. This power can he 
exercised at any stage of the suit. No doubt, once the court recalls 
the witness for the purpose of any such clarification, the court 
may permit the parties to assist the court by examining the 
witness for the purpose of clarification required or permitted by 
the court. The power under Rule 17 cannot be stretched any 
further. The said power cannot be invoked to fill up omission in 
the evidence already led by a witness. It cannot also be used for 
the purpose of filling up a lacuna in the evidence. 'No prejudice 
is caused to either party' is also not a permissible ground to 
invoke Rule 17. No doubt, it is a discretionary power of the court 
but to be used only sparingly, and in case, the court decides to 
invoke the provision, it should also see that the trial is not 
unnecessarily protracted on that ground. (Para 11] (14-A-C] 
9 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
10 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
2. The rigour under Rule 17, however, does not affect the 
inherent powers of the court to pass the required orders for ends 
of justice to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further 
examination or cross-examination or even for production of fresh 
evidence. This power can also be exercised at any stage of the 
suit, even after closure of evidence. Thus, the inherent power is 
the only recou.rse. [Para 14] [15-G] 
3. Thus, in view of the legal position under Order 18 Rule 
17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, the impugned orders 
passed by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court to recall a 
witness at the instance of the respondent "for further elaboration 
on the left out points", is wholly impermissible in law. [Para 18) 
[18-D] 
Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (Dead) Through Lrs. v. 
Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate (2009) 4 SCC 410: 
2009 (2) SCR 1071; K.K. Ve/usamy v. N. Pa/anisamy 
(2011) 11 SCC 275:2011 (4) SCR 31; Bagai 
Cans/ruction Through its Proprietor La/it Bagai v. 
Gupta Building Material store (2013) 14 SCC 1: 2013 
(2) SCR 116 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
E 2909 (2) SCR 1071 
2011 (4) SCR 31 
2013 (2) SCR 116 
relied on. 
relied on. 
relied on. 
Para 12 
Para 13 
Para 17 
F 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
of2016 
Civil Appeal No. 1684 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2013 in Civil 
Miscellaneous (Main) No. 507 of 2011 passed by the High Court of 
Delhi at New Delhi. 
Pritesh Kapur, Om Prakash, A. Abhinav, (For Vivek Narayan 
Sharma), Advs. for the Appellant. 
Praveen Jain, Sidharth Jain, Ajay Kumar Jain, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J.: I. Leave granted. 
RAM RAT! v. MANGE RAM (D) THROUGH LRS. [KURIAN J.] 
11 
2. Whether a witness can be recalled under Order 18 Rule 17 of A 
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') 
for further elaboration of aspects left out in evidence already closed, is 
the issue for consideration in this case. 
3. There are two suits filed by the respective parties and pending 
before the Tis Hazari Courts at Delhi. Civil Suit No. 43 of2009 was filed 
B 
by the respondents herein for declaration and injunction in respect of the 
plaint schedule property. In respect of very same property, the appellant 
herein also filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and that suit has 
been numbered as Civil Su

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