{"id":201306,"date":"2018-09-04T14:30:03","date_gmt":"2018-09-04T09:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=201306"},"modified":"2018-09-11T12:56:32","modified_gmt":"2018-09-11T07:26:32","slug":"order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/","title":{"rendered":"Order 18 Rule 17 CPC not intended for parties to recall witness for re-examination; it enables Court to recall witness to clarify issues \u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/strong>A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and C. Hari Shankar, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-husband against the order of the family court whereby it granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-wife.<\/p>\n

It was contended by appellant that he wasn\u2019t given the opportunity to recall PW 1 for fresh cross-examination as the evidence recorded by the family court was self-destructive attributable to unprofessional approach of the earlier counsel for the appellant. The appellant had filed an application under Section 151 read with Order 18 Rule 17 CPC which was dismissed as withdrawn. The present appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.<\/p>\n

The High Court considered the submissions made by the parties. It referred to Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar<\/em> v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate<\/em><\/strong>, (2009) 4 SCC 410<\/a> and K.K. Velusamy<\/em> v. N. Palanisamy<\/em><\/strong>,\u00a0 (2011) 11 SCC 275<\/a>. The Court observed that Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be exercised sparingly. The provision is not intended to enable the parties to recall any witness for further examination. It is primarily to enable the Court to clarify any issue or doubt by recalling any witness either suo motu<\/em> or on application of any party so that the Court can itself put questions and elicit answers. Moreover, in the present case, the application filed by the appellant was withdrawn when it came up for hearing. Once the application was dismissed as withdrawn, the appellant could not complain that he wasn’t given the opportunity to re-examine the witness. In such circumstances, the appeal was dismissed. [Rajiv Mehta v. Savita Mehta,2018 SCC OnLine Del 10936<\/b><\/a>, dated 20-08-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and C. Hari Shankar, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-husband <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2846,31738,13661,6672],"class_list":["post-201306","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-divorce","tag-order-18-rule-17-cpc","tag-re-examination","tag-witness"],"yoast_head":"\nOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC not intended for parties to recall witness for re-examination; it enables Court to recall witness to clarify issues \u00a0 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Order 18 Rule 17 CPC not intended for parties to recall witness for re-examination; it enables Court to recall witness to clarify issues \u00a0\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and C. Hari Shankar, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-husband\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-09-04T09:00:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-11T07:26:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/\",\"name\":\"Order 18 Rule 17 CPC not intended for parties to recall witness for re-examination; it enables Court to recall witness to clarify issues \u00a0 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-09-04T09:00:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-11T07:26:32+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Order 18 Rule 17 CPC not intended for parties to recall witness for re-examination; it enables Court to recall witness to clarify issues \u00a0\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Order 18 Rule 17 CPC not intended for parties to recall witness for re-examination; it enables Court to recall witness to clarify issues \u00a0 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Order 18 Rule 17 CPC not intended for parties to recall witness for re-examination; it enables Court to recall witness to clarify issues \u00a0","og_description":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and C. Hari Shankar, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-husband","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-09-04T09:00:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-11T07:26:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/","name":"Order 18 Rule 17 CPC not intended for parties to recall witness for re-examination; it enables Court to recall witness to clarify issues \u00a0 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-09-04T09:00:03+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-11T07:26:32+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/04\/order-18-rule-17-cpc-not-intended-for-parties-to-recall-witness-for-re-examination-it-enables-court-to-recall-witness-to-clarify-issues\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Order 18 Rule 17 CPC not intended for parties to recall witness for re-examination; it enables Court to recall witness to clarify issues \u00a0"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":260380,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/20\/power-under-or-18-r-17-cpc-cannot-be-invoked-to-fill-up-omission-in-the-evidence-already-led-by-a-witness\/","url_meta":{"origin":201306,"position":0},"title":"HP HC | Power under Or. 18 R. 17 CPC cannot be invoked to fill up omission in the evidence already led by a witness","author":"Editor","date":"January 20, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 17-07-2017. \u00a0The facts of the case are such that husband filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the wife on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of aforesaid\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":291055,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/01\/no-distinction-in-contested-and-ex-parte-divorce-decree-under-hma-section-15-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":201306,"position":1},"title":"Section 15 of HMA does not make any distinction between a contested decree and an ex parte decree; Delhi High Court upholds second marriage of husband","author":"Arunima","date":"May 1, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court observed that an ex parte decree of divorce also it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again if no appeal is filed against such decree within the period of limitation.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":327401,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/26\/trihc-dismisses-appeal-filed-u-s-100-cpc-as-there-was-no-material-to-formulate-any-substantial-question-of-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":201306,"position":2},"title":"\u2018No material to formulate any substantial question of law\u2019; Tripura HC dismisses appeal filed u\/S 100 of CPC","author":"Simranjeet","date":"July 26, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u2018The contention that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 100 of CPC cannot be accepted, rather the appeal filed by appellant is maintainable before the Court as the order of Additional District Judge is a decree.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tripura High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Tripura-High-Court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Tripura-High-Court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Tripura-High-Court-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Tripura-High-Court-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219680,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/18\/del-hc-objections-under-s-47-cpc-cannot-be-filed-by-signature-of-the-advocate-alone-signature-of-client-necessary\/","url_meta":{"origin":201306,"position":3},"title":"Del HC | Objections under S. 47 CPC cannot be filed by signature of the Advocate alone, signature of client necessary","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Pratibha M. Singh, J. dismissed a petition filed against the order whereby the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 47 CPC (questions to be determined by the Court executing decree)\u00a0were rejected. The respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner under Section 13 read with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":211647,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/08\/del-hc-wifes-application-for-setting-aside-ex-parte-divorce-decree-rejected-in-absence-of-application-for-condonation-of-more-than-4-years-delay\/","url_meta":{"origin":201306,"position":4},"title":"Del HC | Wife’s application for setting aside ex-parte divorce decree rejected in absence of application for condonation of more than 4 years’ delay","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 8, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Bench of G.S. Sistani and Jyoti Singh, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-wife against the order of the family court rejecting her application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce passed in favour of her husband. The parties\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":237619,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/17\/del-hc-husband-citizen-and-domicile-of-usa-can-he-raise-objections-on-divorce-proceedings-filed-by-wife-in-india-court-decrypts-the-law-in-light-of-catena-of-scs-decisions\/","url_meta":{"origin":201306,"position":5},"title":"Del HC | Husband citizen and domicile of USA, Can he raise objections on divorce proceedings filed by wife in India? Court decrypts the law in light of catena of SC’s decisions","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 17, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., while observing a matrimonial application, observed that, The plaint must be read as a whole to determine as to whether it discloses a cause of action. In the instant matter, the husband\/appellant sought to challenge the Order passed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201306","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=201306"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201306\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}