logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 THC 201 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Tripura
Case No : CRP No. 36 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Parties : Chandonrai Halam Versus Neitungram Halam & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.
Date of Judgment : 07-05-2026
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code - Order XVIII Rule 17 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 THC 574,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC
- Order VIII Rule 17 CPC

2. Catch Words:
- Recall of witness
- Re‑examination
- Deposition
- Exceptional circumstances

3. Summary:
The petitioners filed a revision challenging the dismissal of their application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking to recall defendant witnesses, alleging improper recording of their cross‑examination. The trial court held that the witnesses had been duly examined, no objection was raised during recording, and re‑examination is permissible only in exceptional cases. The petitioners relied on Supreme Court pronouncements that the power to recall a witness rests with the court, not the parties, and must be exercised sparingly. The court affirmed that once a deposition is signed without objection, it cannot be recalled to amend or fill gaps. Consequently, the revision was found without merit and dismissed, along with any pending applications.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioners.

2. This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.17.02.2026 in T.S. No.12 of 2021 dismissing a petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioners for recalling the defendant witnesses.

3. The ground on the basis of which the recall application has been filed is that the defendants had examined DWs 1 and 2, and for the answers given by such witnesses to the questions put during cross- examination, recording has not been properly done.

4. The Court below dismissed the said application stating that the witnesses of the defendants have been examined and cross examined duly. No objection was made by the counsel on behalf of the defendant when the evidence was being recorded. It also held that re-examination of witnesses should be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances and not in a routine manner.

5. Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal(C)Nos.12012-12013/2025 interpreted Order VIII Rule 17 CPC in the following terms :

               “This Rule provides the Court with a power which is necessary for the proper conduct of a case. If it appears to a court trying the suit at any stage of the proceedings that it is necessary to recall and further examine a witness it can always do so. This power can be exercised even at the stage of writing a judgment by the court. It is, however, proper that this power should not be exercised lightly and the rule is that it should be used sparingly and in exceptional cases only. The power is to be used for removing ambiguities, for clarifying the statement and not for the purposes of filling up the lacuna in a party’s case. It is true that the power can be exercised by the Court at its own initiative and may even be so done at the instance of a party.”

               The above passage indicates that Order 18 Rule 17 confers a power on the Court to recall a witness but it does not confer the right on the party to a proceeding to recall witnesses and that such a power should be used sparingly and in exceptional cases only.

6. Once the witness has signed the deposition after reading it, and has not objected to the recording made by the Court, it is not permissible for the party to seek to recall the said witness for correcting the said deposition, and it would amount to filling up lacunae in the evidence, which cannot be permitted.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Revision and it is accordingly dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, also stands dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal