The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot permit parties to reopen evidence or recall witnesses merely to fill gaps in their case after the trial has substantially progressed. Setting aside a Telangana High Court order, the Court held that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) exists primarily to assist the court in clarifying doubts and cannot be used by litigants to improve evidence already placed on record.
A Bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti delivered the judgment on 4 August 2026, allowing the appeals filed by K. Bharathamma against Bandaru Sakku Bai and Others.
Background Of The Case
The dispute arose from a civil suit concerning ownership and possession of immovable property in Telangana. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were the absolute owners of the suit properties, challenged two sale deeds executed in 1987 as null and void, and also sought a permanent injunction against the defendants. The first defendant opposed the suit, asserting ownership through registered sale deeds and claiming uninterrupted possession for decades.
During the proceedings, both sides completed their evidence. The plaintiffs examined four witnesses and marked several documents. When the matter had reached the stage of final arguments and the defendant had already concluded submissions, the plaintiffs moved three interlocutory applications seeking to reopen their evidence, recall the first witness (PW-1), and place additional documents on record relating to municipal records and house numbers.
The trial court allowed these applications, observing that reopening the evidence would not prejudice the defendants. The Telangana High Court later modified the orders by fixing a time frame for recalling the witness, marking documents and completing cross-examination while also directing payment of costs by the plaintiffs.
Supreme Court's Observations
Examining the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, the Supreme Court referred to several earlier decisions explaining that the provision is intended to help the court clarify doubts arising during the examination of witnesses. It is not meant to provide litigants with another opportunity to strengthen their evidence after it has already been completed.
The Bench observed,
“This provision can be put into play neither by the party nor by the court itself to permit to fill up the gaps, omissions or lacunae in the evidence.”
The Court further stressed that reopening evidence simply because it may not prejudice the opposite party is not a legally sustainable ground.
As the Bench explained,
“Not the absence of prejudice but an independent justification must exist before the court can legitimately take resort to Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC.”
The judges noted that the plaintiffs had already examined four witnesses and produced numerous documents. The additional material they later sought to introduce was available during the trial itself and did not constitute newly discovered evidence. The Court found that the applications were filed after the proceedings had reached an advanced stage and appeared to be an attempt to cure deficiencies in the evidence already led.
The Bench also held that the High Court's direction permitting cross-examination after recalling the witness travelled beyond the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, since the provision empowers the court to recall a witness for its own clarification and does not confer a general right upon parties to reopen cross-examination.
Court's Decision
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court held that both the trial court and the Telangana High Court had exercised powers under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC in a manner not permitted by law. The Court concluded that the applications effectively sought to fill lacunae in the plaintiffs' evidence after its closure, which is impermissible.
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the common order dated 15 September 2023 passed by the Telangana High Court in the three Civil Revision Petitions and allowed the appeals.
The Court also held that all pending interlocutory applications would stand disposed of.
-300x169.webp)
