Introduction:

The Supreme Court, in K. Bharathamma v. Bandaru Sakku Bai and Others [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 764], has once again clarified the limited scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, holding that the provision empowers only the court to recall a witness for clarification and cannot be invoked by parties to reopen evidence or conduct further examination or cross-examination. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria.

The dispute arose from a civil suit before a trial court in Telangana. After the plaintiffs had completed the examination of PW-1, an application was filed seeking reopening of the evidence and recall of the witness for further cross-examination at the final stage of the proceedings. The trial court permitted the application. In revision, the Telangana High Court declined to interfere substantially and directed that the witness be recalled, documents marked, and cross-examination completed within a fixed time. Aggrieved by these directions, the appellant approached the Supreme Court contending that the High Court had overlooked the settled legal position governing Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC.

The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the provision could be used to reopen evidence and permit further examination of a witness after the evidence had already concluded.

Arguments of the Parties:

The appellant argued that the High Court had exceeded the limits of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC by allowing the reopening of evidence and further cross-examination of PW-1. It was submitted that the provision is intended only to enable the court to clarify doubts arising from the evidence already on record and cannot be used by parties to improve their case or rectify omissions. The appellant relied upon the settled position laid down in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar, wherein the Supreme Court held that recalling a witness cannot be permitted merely to introduce material that was already available during the original examination.

The respondents supported the High Court’s order, contending that recalling the witness would facilitate complete adjudication of the dispute and would not prejudice the opposite party. They argued that the reopening of evidence was necessary for proper appreciation of the facts and would ultimately assist the court in arriving at a just decision.

Court’s Judgment:

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and reiterated the settled principles governing Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. The Court observed that the provision confers a discretionary power on the court to recall a witness only for the limited purpose of clarifying any doubt regarding the evidence already recorded. It is not intended to provide an opportunity to either party to strengthen its case or fill omissions in the evidence.

The Bench explained that the deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17A CPC, which earlier permitted production of evidence not previously known or unavailable despite due diligence, reinforces the limited nature of Rule 17. Consequently, Rule 17 cannot be expanded to achieve what Rule 17A once specifically permitted.

Relying on the decision in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar, the Court reaffirmed that witnesses cannot be recalled for further examination-in-chief, additional cross-examination, or production of evidence that was available when the witness was originally examined. Such an exercise would amount to allowing a party to improve its case after the evidence has been concluded.

The Court further held that the absence of prejudice to the opposite party is not an independent ground for reopening evidence. The decisive consideration is whether the court itself requires clarification for effective adjudication. Unless such necessity exists, the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 cannot be exercised.

The Bench concluded that the Telangana High Court had travelled beyond the statutory limits by permitting reopening of PW-1’s evidence and directing further cross-examination. Such directions were contrary to the settled interpretation of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC and effectively enabled the parties to fill gaps in their evidence, which the law does not permit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and reaffirmed that the power to recall a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is an exceptional judicial power meant solely for the court’s clarification and not as a mechanism for parties to improve or supplement their evidence.