Order 18 Rule 17 CPC Cannot Be Invoked to Fill Evidentiary Lacunae; Litigant Cannot Blame Counsel for Own Negligence: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Name: Bank of India v. Sarabjit and Others

Date of Judgment: 13 July 2026

Citation: CR-5058-2026

Bench: Justice Harsh Bunger

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is intended primarily to enable the Court to clarify doubts arising from the evidence already recorded and cannot ordinarily be invoked by a litigating party to recall witnesses for filling evidentiary lacunae or curing omissions resulting from its own negligence.

The Court further held that a litigant cannot avoid the consequences of failing to diligently prosecute its case by attributing the lapse entirely to its advocate. A party instituting proceedings is under a continuing obligation to remain vigilant throughout the trial and cannot seek reopening of evidence at the final stage by shifting responsibility onto counsel.

Summary: The petitioner-Bank instituted a suit for recovery of ₹14,55,130.84 against the defendants on account of an alleged default in repayment of a term loan. During the trial, the Bank examined three witnesses. PW-1 tendered her examination-in-chief by affidavit but was never made available for cross-examination after the initial opportunity. PW-2 was partly cross-examined, but her further cross-examination remained incomplete as she was not produced thereafter. PW-3 was fully examined and cross-examined. Subsequently, the Bank voluntarily closed its evidence by tendering the statement of account, following which the defendants led their evidence and the matter reached the stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments.

At that stage, the Bank moved an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking recall of PW-1 and PW-2 so that the defendants could either cross-examine them or formally waive their right of cross-examination. The Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that no satisfactory explanation had been furnished for the witnesses’ non-appearance during the plaintiff’s evidence and that reopening the evidence when the trial had substantially concluded was unwarranted.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the witnesses had earlier appeared before the Trial Court but the defendants had failed to cross-examine them. It was further contended that the petitioner’s previous counsel had been negligent in properly conducting the case, resulting in the witnesses not being recalled at the appropriate stage.

The High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s order. It observed that the petitioner had voluntarily closed its evidence despite the incomplete cross-examination of one witness and the absence of cross-examination of another. No convincing explanation was offered for the repeated failure to produce the witnesses after adjournments were granted. The Court held that the application effectively sought to remedy deficiencies in the plaintiff’s own evidence after the defendants had already concluded their case.

Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy and Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd., the Court reiterated that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is to be exercised sparingly and primarily for the Court’s own assistance in clarifying ambiguities arising from the evidence. The provision cannot be used by parties to fill omissions or reopen evidence merely because they failed to diligently prosecute their case.

The Court also rejected the petitioner’s plea that negligence of its previous counsel justified recalling the witnesses. It held that a litigant bears an independent duty to monitor proceedings initiated at its own instance and cannot remain passive throughout the litigation before attributing the consequences entirely to its advocate. Permitting such a course would enable parties to circumvent procedural discipline and undermine the finality of trial proceedings.

Finding no jurisdictional error or perversity in the Trial Court’s exercise of discretion, the High Court declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction.

Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s refusal to recall PW-1 and PW-2 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, holding that the provision cannot be invoked to cure evidentiary lapses arising from a party’s own negligence. It further held that negligence of counsel is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to reopen evidence at the final stage of the trial.