Supreme Court: Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC Cannot Be Used to Fill Gaps in Evidence or Reopen a Trial at the Fag End

Case Name: K. Bharathamma v. Bandaru Sakku Bai & Others

Date of Judgment: 04 August 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 795

Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria

Held: The Supreme Court held that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is a discretionary power vested essentially in the Court to recall a witness for clarification of evidence already on record; it cannot be invoked by a party to fill omissions, cure lacunae, improve its evidence or introduce additional material after its evidence has been closed. Reopening evidence merely because it would cause “no prejudice” to the opposite party is not a legally valid ground; there must be an independent justification for exercising the power. The Court further held that Order XVIII Rule 17 does not empower a court to recall a witness for cross-examination by either party.

Summary: The dispute arose from a civil suit instituted in 2010 in which the plaintiffs sought declaration of ownership over certain properties, declaration that two sale deeds executed in favour of the appellant were null and void, and a permanent injunction. After PW-1 to PW-4 had been examined, Exhibits A1 to A35 marked, evidence on both sides closed and final arguments had proceeded beyond halfway, the plaintiffs filed three interim applications seeking recall of PW-1, reopening of evidence and permission to produce further documents concerning the alleged existence and house numbers of the suit properties.

The Trial Court allowed the applications principally on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, and the Telangana High Court substantially maintained that course while imposing timelines and costs. The Supreme Court found this approach contrary to the settled scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. Significantly, the plaintiffs had earlier admitted that the houses had collapsed in 2016 and that no structures existed on the scheduled property. The Court therefore found that recalling PW-1 to introduce material concerning the house numbers would serve no legitimate purpose and that the applications were apparently filed as a delaying tactic to fill gaps in evidence already led and closed.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Telangana High Court’s common order dated 15 September 2023 in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 458, 496 and 621 of 2023. It held that the directions permitting recall of PW-1, reopening of evidence and reception of documents were legally unsustainable, as the interconnected applications were being used to cure lacunae in the plaintiffs’ completed evidence. All surviving interlocutory applications consequently stood disposed of.