K Bharathammav.Bandaru Sakku Bai & Ors

Supreme Court Sets Aside Reopening of Evidence, Clarifies Order XVIII Rule 17 Cannot Fill Gaps in Testimony

Case Snapshot

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

Citation: 2026 INSC 795

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

Date of Judgment: August 4, 2026

Area of Law: Civil Procedure, Evidence Law, Reopening of Evidence

The Judgment in One Line

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC cannot be used to fill gaps in evidence; "no prejudice" is not a valid ground for recalling witnesses.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is a significant clarification on the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court held that the provision cannot be invoked to fill lacunae in evidence already led or to improve testimony at a belated stage. The Court rejected the "no prejudice" justification often used by courts to permit reopening of evidence. It also clarified that recall of witnesses under Rule 17 is for the court's clarification, not for cross-examination by parties. This judgment serves as a check against delaying tactics and ensures that trial proceedings maintain their integrity and finality.

Background

A suit was filed in 2010 by the respondents seeking declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction over certain properties. The appellant (defendant No. 1) claimed to have purchased the properties through registered sale deeds in 1987 and had been in uninterrupted possession for over 23 years. The plaintiffs had earlier admitted in their counter-affidavit that no house existed on the properties, as structures had collapsed during heavy rains in 2016.

The suit progressed, evidence of both sides was completed, and final arguments were underway. At this stage—after the defendant's arguments were concluded—the plaintiffs filed three interim applications: I.A. No. 716 of 2022 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall PW-1 for marking documents; I.A. No. 717 of 2022 under Section 151 CPC to reopen plaintiffs' evidence; and I.A. No. 718 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to receive documents. The Trial Court allowed all applications on the ground that no prejudice would be caused. The High Court modified the orders, permitting the exercise but imposing costs of ₹20,000. The defendant appealed.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the Trial Court and High Court correctly invoked Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to permit recall of PW-1 and reopening of evidence.

2. Whether "no prejudice" is a valid ground for recalling witnesses under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC.

3. Whether Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC permits cross-examination of a recalled witness by parties.

4. Whether the applications were filed at a belated stage after closure of evidence and commencement of final arguments.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of both the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court's reasoning was anchored in settled principles:

Order XVIII Rule 17 is for Court's Clarification, Not to Fill Gaps: The Court reaffirmed that the power under Rule 17 is to enable the court to clarify doubts regarding evidence already led. It is not meant to fill up omissions in evidence or to permit a party to adduce additional material. The provision cannot be invoked to allow a party to embellish evidence, fill in omissions, or refine testimony at a later stage.

Deletion of Rule 17A Has Significance: The Court noted that Order XVIII Rule 17A—which expressly permitted reopening of evidence and recalling witnesses for further examination or cross-examination—was deleted with effect from July 1, 2002. After its deletion, such power cannot be exercised through Rule 17 or Section 151 CPC unless to deal with a procedural aspect not expressly provided for.

"No Prejudice" Is Not a Valid Ground: The Trial Court's reasoning that no prejudice would be caused was rejected. The Court held that the absence of prejudice is not an independent justification for invoking Rule 17. An independent justification must exist. A party cannot be permitted to cure lacunae merely because the other side would not be prejudiced.

Cross-Examination Not Permitted: The High Court's direction to complete cross-examination of PW-1 was held to be completely beyond the scope of Rule 17. The provision does not permit cross-examination by either party. It only permits the court to put questions to the witness. The Bombay High Court's observation in Balkrishna Shivappa Shetty was endorsed.

Belated Stage Is Relevant: The applications were filed after evidence was closed and final arguments had traveled beyond halfway. The plaintiffs had already examined PW-1 to PW-4 and marked Exhibits A1 to A35. The recall was sought merely to fill gaps regarding house numbers—a matter already addressed during cross-examination.

I.A. No. 5 of 2017 Had Been Closed: The plaintiffs had earlier filed I.A. No. 5 of 2017 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the existence of properties. That application was closed on the plaintiffs' own admission that the houses had collapsed in 2016 and no structure existed. This further demonstrated that the later applications were a delaying tactic.

Key Legal Principles

1. Order XVIII Rule 17 is for court's clarification — it enables the court to recall a witness to put questions, not for parties to fill gaps in evidence.

2. "No prejudice" is not a valid ground — absence of prejudice is not an independent justification for reopening evidence.

3. Rule 17A was deleted deliberately — after deletion, the power to reopen evidence for further examination or cross-examination cannot be exercised under Rule 17.

4. Cross-examination is not permitted — Rule 17 does not allow a party to cross-examine a recalled witness.

5. Belated applications are disfavored — reopening evidence after closure and commencement of final arguments requires compelling justification.

6. The provision is discretionary and sparingly used — the power should be exercised in exceptional cases, not as a routine matter.

7. Evidence cannot be improved at a later stage — once evidence is led and closed, it cannot be embellished or filled in with omissions.

Important Precedents

Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410

• Held that Order XVIII Rule 17 is not intended to fill up omissions in evidence and should be sparingly exercised; "no prejudice" is not sufficient grounds.

K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275

• Explained that after deletion of Rule 17A, the power under Rule 17 cannot be used for reopening evidence or further cross-examination; Section 151 CPC cannot be used for that purpose.

Bagai Construction v. Gupta Building Material Store, (2013) 14 SCC 1

• Held that Rule 17 is not meant to fill up omissions in already adduced evidence; the power is to enable the court to clarify doubts.

Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh, (2024) 11 SCC 343

• Stated that the power under Rule 17 should be used sparingly and in exceptional cases; it must be read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act.

Gayathri v. M. Girish, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 450

• Emphasized completion of trials within time schedules; I.A.s for reopening evidence must be considered only on compelling facts and acceptable reasons.

Ram Rati v. Mange Ram, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1475

• Held that recalling witnesses for "left out points" is wholly impermissible; the power cannot be invoked to fill gaps.

Balkrishna Shivappa Shetty v. Mahesh Nenshi Bhakta, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1033

• Observed that Order XVIII Rule 17 does not permit a party to cross-examine a recalled witness.

Practical Impact

For advocates: This judgment is crucial when opposing belated applications to reopen evidence or recall witnesses. Advocates can argue that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 is limited to the court's clarification and cannot be used to fill gaps. The "no prejudice" defence is no longer a valid ground. The judgment also prevents parties from using the provision as a delaying tactic.

For future litigation: Courts will now be stricter in rejecting applications filed after evidence is closed and final arguments have commenced. The deletion of Rule 17A will be given effect, and Section 151 CPC cannot be used to bypass the limitations.

May be cited: In any civil suit where a party seeks to recall a witness or reopen evidence under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, particularly when the application is filed at a belated stage or after the closure of evidence.

Lawcurb Quick Insight

The Court's rejection of the "no prejudice" ground is significant. This reasoning was often used by courts to permit belated evidence. The judgment clarifies that the absence of prejudice is not a sufficient justification—there must be an independent, compelling reason for reopening evidence.

Lawcurb Practice Note

When opposing an application under Order XVIII Rule 17, emphasize that the provision is for the court's clarification, not for parties to fill gaps. Argue that "no prejudice" is not a valid ground and that the party is seeking to cure its own negligence.

Remember This Ratio

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC cannot be used to fill gaps in evidence; "no prejudice" is not a valid ground for recalling witnesses.

Exam Lens

Q: What is the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code? A: It empowers the court to recall any witness who has been examined and put questions to him as the court thinks fit. The power is discretionary and meant for the court's clarification, not for parties to fill omissions in evidence or to adduce additional material. It does not permit cross-examination by parties.

Q: What was the effect of deleting Order XVIII Rule 17A of the CPC? A: Rule 17A expressly permitted reopening of evidence and recalling witnesses for further examination or cross-examination. Its deletion with effect from July 1, 2002, means that such power cannot be exercised under Rule 17 or Section 151 CPC, except to deal with a procedural aspect not expressly provided for.

Q: Is "no prejudice" a valid ground for recalling a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17? A: No. The absence of prejudice is not an independent justification for invoking Rule 17. An independent, compelling reason must exist. The provision cannot be used merely because the other side would not be prejudiced.

Final Outcome

• Appeal allowed — the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of the Trial Court and High Court.

• Interim applications dismissed — I.A. No. 716 of 2022, I.A. No. 717 of 2022, and I.A. No. 718 of 2022 are dismissed.

• No reopening of evidence — the plaintiffs cannot recall PW-1 or reopen their evidence.

• High Court direction set aside — the direction to complete cross-examination of PW-1 within a stipulated time is quashed.

• No costs — parties to bear their own costs.

• Interlocutory applications disposed — pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Lawcurb Verdict

This judgment is a significant clarification of the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. By holding that the provision cannot be used to fill gaps in evidence and that "no prejudice" is not a valid ground, the Court has prevented its misuse as a delaying tactic. The judgment also reinforces that after deletion of Rule 17A, the power under Rule 17 is limited to the court's clarification and does not extend to cross-examination by parties. A timely reminder that trial proceedings must maintain their integrity and finality.

This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.