In K. Bharathamma v. Bandaru Sakku Bai, Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2744-2746 of 2024, decided on 4 August 2026 and reported as 2026 INSC 795, a Bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti set aside a Telangana High Court order that had allowed a plaintiff to reopen evidence and recall a witness at the fag end of a title suit. The judgment collects the parameters governing Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — a provision invoked in trial courts every working day, and misunderstood almost as often.
How the question arose
The underlying suit, O.S. No. 489 of 2010, concerned properties at Ghatkesar in Telangana. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and the cancellation of two sale deeds of 1987 under which the defendant claimed as a purchaser in long possession. Evidence was closed and final arguments were substantially advanced when, in 2022, the plaintiffs filed three interlocutory applications: to reopen the evidence, to recall PW-1, and to introduce documents said to establish house numbers on the suit land — documents claimed to have been unavailable earlier. This was despite the plaintiffs having earlier admitted that the structures had collapsed in the rains of 2016 and no longer existed.
The trial court passed orders on the applications, and the Telangana High Court then directed that the recall and reopening of the evidence of PW-1 be completed within ten days, cross-examination by the defendant within a week thereafter, on payment of costs of Rs. 20,000 — reasoning in part that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. The defendant appealed.
The parameters restated
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and, drawing on the settled line of authority from Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate (2009), K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011) and Bagai Construction v. Gupta Building Material Store (2013), restated the limits of the power:
Clarification only
The power exists so the court can clear doubts arising from evidence already recorded. It is not available to fill omissions or supply gaps in a party’s evidence.
No improvement
Evidence already led and settled cannot be improved, refined or supplemented by reopening or recalling witnesses under this provision.
The court’s power
The discretion belongs to the court and is exercised sparingly. A party cannot use the rule to obtain, in substance, a fresh round of examination.
No cross-examination route
The provision does not empower recall of a witness for the purpose of cross-examination by either party.
Two further points in the judgment deserve emphasis. First, the Court rejected the no-prejudice rationale in terms: it is not the absence of prejudice to the opposite party but the existence of an independent justification that permits recourse to Order XVIII Rule 17. Second, applying the knowledge-based test from Vadiraj Vernekar, recall fails where the material sought to be introduced was available to the party when the evidence was originally led. On the facts, the documents were accessible earlier, the plaintiffs had already admitted the structures no longer stood, and the applications at the stage of final arguments bore the character of a delaying tactic.
What this means in the trial court
1. Plan the evidence before it opens
Documents must be marshalled when affidavits of examination-in-chief are prepared, not discovered at arguments.
2. If recall is genuinely needed
The application must show an independent justification — a doubt in the recorded evidence that the court itself needs resolved — and explain why the material could not have been produced earlier.
3. Opposing a recall application
Test it against the parameters: is it clarification, or improvement? Was the material available earlier? Is the real object cross-examination or delay?
Belated applications to reopen evidence are among the commonest causes of delay in suits pending in the District Courts of Delhi and elsewhere. This judgment arms both benches and counsel with a checklist for disposing of them briskly — and is a caution that an order allowing recall merely because it seems harmless is now squarely contrary to Supreme Court authority.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. The maintainability of any application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC depends on the record of the particular suit.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for?
It permits the court, at any stage of a suit, to recall a witness already examined and put questions to the witness. The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that the power exists to enable the court to clarify doubts in the evidence that trouble the court itself. It is not a route by which a party may lead further evidence, improve testimony already given, or repair omissions.
Can a party demand recall of a witness as of right?
No. The power is discretionary and belongs to the court. A party may invite the court to exercise it, but cannot compel it, and the court exercises it sparingly, in exceptional circumstances. An application that in substance seeks a second round of examination-in-chief or cross-examination falls outside the provision altogether.
Is absence of prejudice to the other side a good ground?
The Supreme Court held it is not. The test is not whether the opposite party would suffer prejudice if evidence were reopened, but whether an independent justification exists for the recall. Documents that were available when the evidence was originally led cannot be introduced later merely because allowing them would be harmless.
Does the 2023 overhaul of criminal law affect the CPC?
No. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, in force since 1 July 2024, replace the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act respectively. Civil procedure continues to be governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including Order XVIII Rule 17 as interpreted in this line of authority.