Shubhkaran Singh vs. Abhayraj Singh & Ors. (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION-CIVIL)

Supreme Court’s judgment review by Karma AI – Shubhkaran Singh vs. Abhayraj Singh & Ors.

I. Case Identification & Vitals

1. Court:
Supreme Court of India

2. Case Title:
Shubhkaran Singh vs. Abhayraj Singh & Ors.

3. Document Type and Date of Judgment:
Order, May 05, 2025

4. Case Number:
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 12012-12013/2025

5. SCR Citation:
NA

6. Neutral Citation:
2025 INSC 628

7. Disposal Nature:
Special Leave Petitions Dismissed

8. Case Type:
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)

9. Law Applicable:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC); Indian Evidence Act, 1872

10. Bench:

1. Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala
2. Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan

11. Judgment Authored by:
This is a joint order of the Bench.

II. Summaries & Core Issues

12. Headnote:
In an important order clarifying the scope of a trial court’s power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the Supreme Court has held that this power is to be exercised by the court for its own clarification and not to allow a party to fill lacunae in their case. The petitioner had challenged an order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which rejected his application to recall a witness.

The Supreme Court, while dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, undertook a detailed analysis of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act. The Court ruled that the power to recall a witness under this provision is exclusively vested in the court and is intended to be used sparingly, in exceptional cases, to remove ambiguities or clarify doubts in the evidence. It is not a tool for parties to conduct further examination-in-chief or cross-examination, or to introduce new evidence.

The Court, relying on its previous judgments in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar and K.K. Velusamy, emphasized that while a court may permit parties to assist it by putting some questions to a recalled witness, the primary purpose is for the court’s own understanding. However, the Court also observed that if circumstances warrant, a court can grant an opportunity to a party to recall a witness for further examination by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC, provided the application is bona fide and not a protracting tactic. Finding no reason to interfere with the High Court’s order in the present case, the petitions were dismissed. (Drafted based on document analysis)

13. Short Summary:
The Supreme Court has clarified that a trial court’s power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC is meant for the court’s own use to clear up doubts, not for a party to fix holes in their case. The Court was hearing a petition from a litigant whose request to recall a witness was denied by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. While dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court explained that this power should be used rarely. However, it also noted that in special circumstances, a court could allow a witness to be recalled under its inherent powers (Section 151 CPC) if it helps in delivering justice.

14. Issue for Consideration:
What is the scope and purpose of the power vested in a court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to recall a witness, and can this power be invoked by a party to the suit for further examination or cross-examination?

III. Procedural & Factual Background

15. Case Start Date:
The Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 12012-12013/2025 were filed in 2025.

16. Case Arising From:
The petition arose from an order dated January 7, 2025, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, which had rejected a Miscellaneous Petition (No. 7264/2024) filed by the petitioner. This petition had sought the recall of a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC. The petitioner had also filed a Review Petition (No. 117/2025) against the High Court’s order, which was also rejected on February 27, 2025. The petitioner challenged both these orders in the Supreme Court.

17. Background and Facts:
The petitioner, a party to a suit, filed an application before the trial court (details not specified) to recall a witness who had already been examined. This application was presumably rejected by the trial court. The petitioner then approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by filing a Miscellaneous Petition under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC. The High Court rejected this petition. A subsequent review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Aggrieved by these rejections, the petitioner filed the present Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court.

18. Timeline:

• January 7, 2025: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejected the petitioner’s Miscellaneous Petition No. 7264/2024.
• February 27, 2025: The High Court rejected the petitioner’s Review Petition No. 117/2025.
• May 05, 2025: The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions.

19. Parties Involved:

• Petitioner: Shubhkaran Singh
• Respondents: Abhayraj Singh & Ors.

20. Procedural History:

• High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur: Rejected the petitioner’s application to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, and subsequently dismissed the review petition as well.

IV. Legal Analysis & Arguments

21. Issues Framed:
Not Applicable. The Court suo motu undertook an exposition of the law on Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.

22. Areas of Debate:

1. The scope and limitations of a court’s power under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC.
2. The interplay between Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
3. The distinction between recalling a witness for the court’s clarification versus for a party’s benefit.
4. The potential use of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to recall a witness.

23. Cases Cited by Petitioner/Appellant:
NA

24. Cases Cited by Respondent/Defendant:
NA

25. Acts/Rules/Orders Referred:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
  • Order 18 Rule 17:
    • Quoted Text: “The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.”
    • Context: This was the central provision under consideration. The Court interpreted it to mean that the power is vested exclusively in the court for its own clarification and should be used sparingly.
  • Section 151 (Inherent powers of Court):
    • Context: The Court observed that while Order 18 Rule 17 is for the court’s benefit, a party could potentially seek to recall a witness under the court’s inherent powers under Section 151, if the circumstances warrant it and the application is bona fide.
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  • Section 165:
    • Context: The Court read this section along with Order 18 Rule 17 to emphasize that the power to ask any question to a witness at any time is primarily for the judge to discover relevant facts. Parties are not entitled to cross-examine on the answers without the court’s leave.

26. Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

27. Literature Citation:
NA

28. Appearances for Parties:
The order mentions learned counsel for the petitioner.

29. Prayer:
The petitioner sought to challenge the High Court’s orders and, by implication, sought permission to recall the witness.

30. Evidence & Findings:
The order was decided on a pure question of law regarding the interpretation of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. No factual evidence was discussed.

31. Petitioner/Appellant Arguments:
The petitioner’s arguments (inferred) were that the High Court erred in rejecting his application to recall a witness, and that such a recall was necessary for the just adjudication of the case.

32. Respondent/Defendant Arguments:
NA

V. Judgment & Conclusion

33. Ratio Decidendi:

1. Power under Order 18 Rule 17 is for the Court: The power to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is vested exclusively in the court. It is intended to be used sparingly and in exceptional cases, primarily to enable the court to clarify any issue or doubt it may have regarding the evidence. The right to put questions to the recalled witness is given only to the court. (Para 6, 8, 9)
2. Not for Filling Lacunae in a Party’s Case: This provision is not meant to be used by parties to fill gaps in their evidence, or for further examination-in-chief or cross-examination. A witness cannot be recalled at the instance of a party for these purposes under this rule. (Para 6, 9, 10)
3. Interplay with Section 165 of the Evidence Act: When read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, it becomes clear that the power to recall and question a witness is a tool for the court to discover the truth. Parties cannot object to the court’s questions or cross-examine on the answers without the court’s express permission. (Para 7)
4. Inherent Powers under Section 151 CPC as an Alternative: While Order 18 Rule 17 is not for the benefit of the parties, the Court acknowledged that if circumstances warrant, a court can use its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to grant a party’s request to recall a witness. This can be done if the application is bona fide and the additional evidence will assist the court in rendering justice. However, this power must be used with caution to avoid protracting the trial and should be subject to costs. (Para 10, 12)

34. Final Decision:
In view of the settled position of law as explained in the order, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.

35. Legal Jargons and Maxims:

• Lacuna: A gap or missing part. In a legal context, it refers to a gap in evidence or a party’s case.
• Suo motu: A Latin term meaning “on its own motion,” referring to an action taken by a court without a request from any party.
• Bona fide: A Latin term meaning “in good faith.”

36. Exhibits:
NA

VI. Key Learnings for Law Students and Legal Professionals

37. Key Learnings:
The order in Shubhkaran Singh vs. Abhayraj Singh & Ors. is an authoritative guide on the use and misuse of Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC.

1. Clear Demarcation of Powers: The judgment draws a sharp line between the court’s power and a party’s right. Order 18 Rule 17 is a power of the court, not a right of the litigant. This distinction is fundamental. A party cannot demand the recall of a witness under this rule as a matter of right.
2. Preventing Abuse of Process: The Court’s emphasis that this power should be used “sparingly” and not to “fill up the lacuna in a party’s case” is crucial. It is aimed at preventing litigants from using this provision as a backdoor to introduce evidence they forgot to lead earlier or to harass witnesses with repeated examinations, thereby delaying the trial.
3. The Role of Inherent Powers (Section 151 CPC): The judgment provides a vital window of opportunity for litigants. While Order 18 Rule 17 is closed to them, a bona fide application to recall a witness for genuine reasons that would aid in justice can be made under Section 151 CPC. This shows the flexibility of the law to meet the ends of justice, but with strict conditions to prevent misuse.
4. Guidance for Trial Courts: The order provides clear, practical guidance for trial judges: use Order 18 Rule 17 for your own clarification, be cautious when a party invokes Section 151 for the same purpose, and if you do allow it, impose costs and set strict timelines to ensure the process is not abused.

The most important finding of this judgment is that Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC is a discretionary power of the court to be used for its own clarification and not a provision that can be invoked by a party to recall a witness for further examination to fill gaps in their evidence.

Important Keywords for this Judgment: Shubhkaran Singh vs. Abhayraj Singh & Ors.

Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, Recall of Witness, Shubhkaran Singh vs. Abhayraj Singh, Section 151 CPC, Inherent Powers of Court, Filling Lacunae in Evidence, Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar, K.K. Velusamy, Civil Procedure Code, Power of Court to Recall Witness.