The Supreme Court (SC), in Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh [2025 INSC 628], held that under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), only the court—not the parties—has the power to recall a witness.
This provision may not be invoked by parties for examination, cross-examination, or re-examination. Its purpose is to enable the court to clarify ambiguities and dispel doubts arising from the evidence, not to allow a party to fill lacunae in its case.
Parties are not entitled to cross-examine witnesses recalled under this rule without the court’s permission, as the right to ask questions lies solely with the court.
However, if circumstances justify it, parties may seek recall of a witness for examination, cross-examination, or re-examination under the court’s inherent powers granted by Section 151 of the CPC. Such exercise of discretion rests entirely with the court.
The Order 18 Rule 17 empowers the court to conduct proceedings effectively and fairly. If, at any stage of the trial, the court finds it necessary to recall and further examine a witness, it may do so—even at the stage of drafting the judgment.
In this regard, the court relied on the judgement in K.K. Velusamy v N. Palanisamy [2011) 11 SCC 275]. In the judgement it was held that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 is only for clarification: that means to enable the court to clarify any issue or doubt, it may have in regard to evidence led by parties, by recalling any witness, so that the court itself can put questions to such witness and elicit answers.
Nonetheless, the power under this provision must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
References
- Shubhkaran Singh v Abhayraj Singh [2025 INSC 628]
- K.K. Velusamy v N. Palanisamy [2011) 11 SCC 275]
No Stamp Duty on Sale Certificate Issued by Banks/Revenue Authorities to Auction Purchaser: Kerala High Court
Post by m. Srinivasan Notarypublic &commissioner of oaths
25-07-2025
The Kerala High Court has ruled that a sale certificate issued to an auction purchaser following the sale of immovable property belonging to a revenue defaulter does not automatically attract stamp duty under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, unless it qualifies as an instrument as defined under the Act. This decision was rendered by a Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice P.M. Manoj while hearing WA No. 2008 of 2024 and connected cases.
Government appeals dismissed against Single Bench decision
The batch of writ appeals had been filed by the Revenue Department challenging a Single Bench verdict that exempted such sale certificates from stamp duty. The High Court rejected the State’s contention, thereby upholding the earlier ruling that such certificates cannot be treated as instruments liable for duty unless they create or record rights or liabilities in praesenti.
Supreme Court precedent examined in Ferrous Alloy Forgings case
To determine whether a sale certificate qualifies as an instrument, the Court examined the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Ltd, where it was clarified that title to property is not transferred merely upon issuance of a sale certificate, but upon the confirmation of sale by the competent authority. The certificate simply records the fact that a sale took place.
Instrument under Kerala Stamp Act requires rights or liabilities to be created
The Division Bench clarified that only when a sale certificate creates, transfers, limits, extends, extinguishes or records a right or liability in praesenti, does it qualify as an instrument under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. Otherwise, it remains a record of a concluded transaction and is not subject to stamp duty under the Act.
Sale certificate may attract stamp duty only after registration
The High Court explained that a sale certificate may become an instrument at a later stage when its original is presented for registration before the sub-registrar. In such cases, the registering authority is required to examine the rights conferred by the certificate, and upon copying it into Book No. 1, the stamp duty would become chargeable in accordance with Article 16 of the Kerala Stamp Act. This duty would then be payable by the auction purchaser.
Validity of document not affected by lack of stamp duty unless produced in evidence
The Court further clarified that insufficient stamping of the sale certificate would not affect the validity of the document itself. It would only affect the admissibility of the document as evidence in a legal proceeding. For this, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 And The Indian Stamp Act 1899.
Sale certificates under Kerala Stamp Act not always taxable
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court ruled that sale certificates issued in revenue recovery auctions are not liable for stamp duty unless registered or shown to create a right or liability. The Court emphasized that the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, and the Registration Act, 1908, must be read harmoniously. As a result, the appeals by the State Government were dismissed.
Petitioner VERSUS Respondent: RDO and Another VERSUS Thomas Daniel and connected cases