K. Bharathamma v. Bandaru Sakku Bai and Others — 2026 INSC 795 — 4 August 2026
What the case was about
This appeal arose from a long-running land dispute in Telangana. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted Original Suit No. 489 of 2010 (later renumbered as Original Suit No. 1302 of 2022) seeking a declaration that they were the absolute owners of the suit properties and challenging two registered sale deeds executed in 1987 in favour of the appellant-defendant No. 1. The appellant asserted that she was a bona fide purchaser and had been in uninterrupted possession since 1987.
After both parties had led their evidence and the appellant’s final arguments had concluded, the plaintiffs filed three interim applications before the trial court. They sought to recall their first witness (PW-1), reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence, and produce additional documents concerning house numbers. The trial court allowed all three applications by orders dated 8 December 2022. The Telangana High Court modified the trial court’s orders by a common order dated 15 September 2023, effectively permitting the recall of PW-1, the reopening of evidence, and the marking of documents. The appellant thereupon filed SLP (C) Nos. 2744–2746 of 2024 before the Supreme Court, leave was granted, and the matters were heard as Civil Appeals.
The key facts
The dispute centred on the ownership of properties covered by two registered sale deeds from 1987. The respondents-plaintiffs claimed ownership and sought to invalidate those deeds. The appellant-defendant No. 1 relied on the registered deeds and asserted uninterrupted possession since 1987.
Once evidence was led by both parties and the appellant’s final arguments were over, the respondents filed interim applications seeking to recall PW-1 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to reopen the plaintiffs’ evidence under Section 151 of the CPC, and to receive further documents relating to house numbers under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC. The trial court allowed these applications by orders dated 8 December 2022. The High Court, by its common order dated 15 September 2023, modified these directions and permitted the recall, reopening of evidence, and marking of additional documents. This prompted the appellant to approach the Supreme Court by way of special leave petitions.
The questions before the Court
The Supreme Court was called upon to decide four interrelated questions:
- Was the High Court justified in modifying the trial court’s orders to direct the recall of PW-1 and reopening of the plaintiffs’ evidence under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC?
- Can Order XVIII Rule 17 be invoked to fill lacunae, omissions, or gaps in a party’s evidence already led, or merely on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to the other side?
- Does Order XVIII Rule 17 empower a court to recall a witness for the purpose of cross-examination by a party to the suit?
- Could the High Court permit the respondents to receive additional documents under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC at the fag end of the proceedings?
What the Court decided and why
A bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s common order dated 15 September 2023 (para 10).
The Court stressed that Order XVIII Rule 17 is a discretionary power-cum-duty vested exclusively in the court to clarify doubts regarding evidence already led. It cannot be utilised by a party, or by the court at a party’s request, to fill up gaps, omissions or lacunae in the evidence. “This provision can be put into play neither by the party nor by the court itself to permit to fill up the gaps, omissions or lacunae in the evidence,” the Court held (para 6.1). It further observed that the provision “is not a tool whereby a party can embellish the evidence, fill in the omissions therein or refine the evidence at a later stage” (para 6.2).
On the “no prejudice” argument that had pervaded the reasoning of the courts below, the judgment was firm. The Court held that the absence of prejudice to the opposite party is not a valid yardstick for permitting the reopening of evidence or recalling of a witness. “Not the absence of prejudice but an independent justification must exist before the court can legitimately take resort to Order XVIII Rule 17, CPC,” it ruled (para 6.3). The theory of “no prejudice” cannot be conveniently applied to justify invocation of the provision (para 7.5).
The Court also clarified the limited scope of the court’s power under Order XVIII Rule 17. The provision does not empower the recall of a witness so that a party may cross-examine that witness; it permits recall only for examination by the court itself. The Supreme Court endorsed the view that the provision “does not empower the Court to recall the witness for the purpose of cross-examination by either of the parties though it does permit recall of witnesses for the purpose of examination by the Court itself” (para 7.3.1). Consequently, any direction allowing a party to cross-examine a recalled witness falls outside the rule.
On the prayer to receive additional documents under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC, the Court held that this prayer was inextricably interwoven with the impermissible prayers for recalling and reopening evidence. Because the composite directions suffered from the same legal vices, they were unsustainable in law (para 8).
Why it matters
This decision is a significant restatement of the boundaries of trial court discretion under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC. By clarifying that the provision cannot be used as a tool to improve, embellish or complete a party’s evidence after the record is settled, the Supreme Court seeks to prevent litigants from using procedural applications as a second chance to repair a weak case. The ruling puts to rest the common practice of justifying such relief on the ground that the opposite side will not be prejudiced.
Perhaps most importantly, the judgment reinforces the distinction between the court’s own power to examine a witness to clarify doubts and a party’s right to cross-examine. Parties cannot invoke Order XVIII Rule 17 as a backdoor route to cross-examine a witness again. Together, these principles promote the timely conclusion of civil trials and guard against the abuse of process that prolongs disputes and frustrates the final resolution of suits.