[2025:RJ-JP:45513] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16578/2024 Balram S/o Shri Kishori, aged about 57 Years, R/o Town Bayana, Teshil Bayana, District-Bharatpur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Hajari Lal S/o Pyare Lal, 2. Chain Singh S/o Pyare Lal, Both are R/o Village-Jaisora, Tehsil Bayana, Distrct- Bharatpur 3. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Baij Nath, 4. Brijesh Tiwari S/o Shri Jamuna Lal Tiwari, 5. Jai Prakash S/o Om Prakash, All of respondent No.3 to 5 R/o Town Bayana, Teshil Bayana, District-Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.L. Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhilash Sharma Mr. Yuvraj Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 12/11/2025 1. Matter has come up on an application (I.A. No.1/2025) filed by respondents No.1 and 2 for vacation of the ex parte interim order dated 18.02.2025 passed by this Court. 2. With the mutual consent of the parties, the matter was finally heard on the merits. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bayana, District Bharatpur, whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC was rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:45513] (2 of 4) [CW-16578/2024] 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cross- examination of the plaintiff was completed on 15.10.2013. Thereafter, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and an additional issue was framed on 01.08.2019. He further contends that the petitioner has been wrongly denied an opportunity to recall the PW-1-Hajari Lal. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC ought to have been allowed and the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the said submissions and supports the impugned order and submits that the impugned order has been passed after due appreciation of the pleadings and the facts of the case. He further submits that the petitioner has already cross-examined the PW-1-Hajari Lal on 15.10.2013. Thereafter, nothing new has come on record. Therefore, the prayer for recalling made by the petitioner deserves to be rejected. To support his contentions, he placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh and Ors.1. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the record of the case, it is evident that the suit for specific performance was filed on 18.05.2012, wherein the petitioner-defendant filed a written statement on 04.07.2012. Thereafter, issues were framed on 12.09.2012 and the plaintiff filed an affidavit, whereupon he was cross-examined by the petitioner on 15.10.2013. After the cross-examination was over, the defendant Nos.2 to 4 were impleaded as parties on 1 2025 INSC 628 [2025:RJ-JP:45513] (3 of 4) [CW-16578/2024] 16.04.2014, who have filed their written-statement on 11.12.2017. Thereafter, the newly added defendants have cross- examined the plaintiff on 31.08.2022. Further, the burden of proof with regard to the additionally framed issue on 01.08.2019 is cast upon the newly added defendants; therefore, the petitioner cannot seek to recall PW-1-Hajari Lal on that count. 8. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner has duly cross-examined PW-1-Hajari Lal in detail on 15.10.2013, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not been given due opportunity of cross-examination merely because a few new defendants have been impleaded. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to seek recalling of the witness PW-1-Hajari Lal. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shubhkaran Singh (supra), while explaining the scope of Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC has held as under: "12. In the case of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy reported at (2011) 11 SCC 275, this Court discussed the power of the Court Under Order 18 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. It was held that this power is only for clarification i.e. to enable the Court to clarify any issue or doubt, it may have in regard to evidence led by parties by recalling any witness so that the Court itself can put questions to such a witness and elicit answers. The relevant paras 9, 10 and 19 read as under: 9. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily a provision enabling the court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo motu, or at the request of any party, so that the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions. 10. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily a provision enabling the court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo motu, or at the request of any party, so that the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such [2025:RJ-JP:45513] (4 of 4) [CW-16578/2024] clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions. xxx xxx xxx 19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracted tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. (Emphasis supplied) 10. Thus, the court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner as it is not a case where the petitioner has not been granted opportunity of cross-examination; but rather a case where, after already availing an opportunity of cross- examining PW-1-Hajari Lal, the petitioner now seeks to recall PW- 1-Hajari Lal, which cannot be allowed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or legal infirmity so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 13. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /96