Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC: Analysis of K. Bharathamma v. Bandaru Sakku Bai

 

Case Details

• Case Name: K. Bharathamma v. Bandaru Sakku Bai and Others

• Citation/Application Number: 2026 INSC 795; Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2744-2746 of 2024)

• Court: Supreme Court of India

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

• Date of Judgment: August 04, 2026

Factual Matrix

The plaintiffs (Respondents) instituted a suit in 2010 seeking a declaration of absolute ownership over certain scheduled properties and prayed to declare the 1987 sale deeds executed in favor of Defendant No. 1 (Appellant) as null and void. The Appellant contested the suit, asserting lawful ownership through a bona fide purchase and uninterrupted possession for 23 years, which was supported by a 1990 perpetual injunction decree previously obtained against the plaintiffs.

During the trial proceedings, the plaintiffs had explicitly admitted that the houses on the suit property had collapsed in the heavy rains of 2016, which led to the closure of an earlier interim application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner. However, at the very fag end of the suit—after the closure of evidence for both sides and when final arguments had advanced past the half-way mark—the plaintiffs filed three interim applications under Order XVIII Rule 17, Section 151, and Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Through these applications, the plaintiffs sought to reopen the evidence, recall PW-1 to mark new documents regarding house numbers, and condone the delay in receiving these documents. The Trial Court allowed these applications primarily on the premise that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. The High Court subsequently modified the orders, directing the completion of the recalling, reopening, and cross-examination process within a stipulated timeframe.

Issues Framed

• Whether the court can invoke Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC to allow a party to reopen evidence and recall a witness merely to fill up lacunae or omissions in their case?

• Whether the justification that "no prejudice would be caused to the opposing party" is a legally valid ground to exercise discretionary powers under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC?

• Whether Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC empowers the court to recall a witness for the explicit purpose of cross-examination by the parties?

Key Arguments

• Appellant (Defendant No. 1): The appellant argued that the interim applications were merely delaying tactics introduced at the final argument stage. Furthermore, because the plaintiffs had already admitted earlier in the proceedings that no structure existed on the suit property, the attempt to introduce documents regarding house numbers was a futile exercise designed to unnecessarily prolong the litigation.

• Respondents (Plaintiffs): The respondents contended that the defendant raised new pleas during final arguments regarding the existence of houses and house numbers, which necessitated further evidence. Acting on legal advice, they sought to introduce municipal documents showing house numbers, arguing that reopening the evidence would cause no prejudice to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi & Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC is a discretionary power vested strictly in the court to clarify any doubts arising during the examination of a witness, and it is not a tool for parties to fill up gaps, omissions, or lacunae in their already led evidence. The Court emphasized that this provision cannot be utilized in a routine manner or simply upon a litigant's request, as doing so would defeat the core purpose of an expedited trial and encourage the abuse of process.

Relying on established precedents such as Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate and K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, the Court clarified that a party cannot embellish or refine their evidence at a later stage, especially when the evidence sought to be introduced was available when the original affidavits were prepared.

Crucially, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the "no prejudice" theory applied by the Trial Court. The Court ruled that the mere absence of prejudice to the opposing party is not a valid yardstick; an independent and compelling justification must exist to invoke Order XVIII Rule 17. Furthermore, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Balkrishna Shivappa Shetty v. Mahesh Nenshi Bhakta, the Court observed that Order XVIII Rule 17 does not inherently empower the court to recall a witness for the purpose of cross-examination by the parties.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the common order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana, effectively quashing the permissions granted to the plaintiffs to reopen their evidence and recall witnesses.

Key Takeaway / Relevance

This judgment serves as a critical procedural reminder for practicing advocates: trial courts will not entertain applications to recall witnesses or reopen evidence at the final argument stage simply to patch holes in a case. For judicial service aspirants, it underscores the strict, traditional interpretation of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC. The Supreme Court has unequivocally clarified that this provision is fundamentally the court's tool for clarification, not a litigant's safety net, and the often-argued "absence of prejudice" cannot justify bypassing the established discipline of a civil trial.