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]
