In Brief
This case concerns whether a witness can be recalled under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to elaborate on evidence already recorded. The Supreme Court held that this power is limited to enabling courts to clarify doubts regarding existing evidence and cannot be used to fill gaps or omissions in a witness's testimony. The Court affirmed that the power is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly. The fact that a party suffers no prejudice is not grounds for recall. The Court set aside orders by the trial court and High Court recalling a witness for further elaboration on "left out points" as wholly impermissible under law.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.