Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC | Recall Applications Can't Be Filed At A Belated Stage Without Cogent Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently agreed with a trial court ruling that applications under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC to recall the evidence of witnesses cannot be allowed at a belated stage such as after closure of their evidence, without cogent reasons.

Justice Dr K Manmadha Rao observed that the petitioner had failed to provide sufficient grounds for recalling the witnesses and that the application seemed to be filed merely to fill gaps in the evidence.

"The application is filed at belated stage without cogent reasons, which is filed to fill up the lacunae...Upon perusal of the record would go to show that there is no impropriety or illegality in the order of the trial court and also finds that there is no sufficient grounds mentioned as to how their evidence is required, which fact is not mentioned."

The plaintiff had filed a suit to cancel a Registered Sale Deed dated 11.04.2018, executed in favour of the 1st defendant. Thereafter, he filed an application under Order 18 Rule 7 to recall DW-1 and DW-3 for further cross-examination. The trial court dismissed this application on the grounds that it was filed to fill gaps in the evidence, would prejudice the 1st respondent and there was no justifiable cause to reopen and recall the witnesses after the closure of evidence on the side of the defendants.

Challenging this impugned order, a revision petition was filed.

The petitioner argued that the application was filed before the judgment stage, not after, and its purpose was to clarify any issues or doubts by recalling witnesses, as allowed by relevant legal provisions as held in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate. They also cited K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy where it was held that where the application under Order 18 Rule 17 is found to be bonafide and where the additional evidence will assist the court in clarifying the evidence on the issues and in rendering justice, the court may recall the witnesses.

The respondents contended that the application was filed after the arguments of the petitioner, with false allegations and an intention to fill gaps in the evidence, which is not permitted according to the Bagai Construction vs. Gupta Building Material Store.

The Court examined the record and found that the trial court's order was neither improper nor illegal. It noted that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient grounds for recalling the witnesses and that the application seemed to be filed merely to fill gaps in the evidence.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: K. Koutilya

Counsel for Respondent: N. Madhava Reddy

Case Title: Battini Srinivas Rao v. Konuri Venkata Chalapathi Rao

Case no.: CRP No. 1853 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order