1 2025:CGHC:6726 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 126 of 2025  Shamim Bano W/o Wasiullah Khan Aged About 33 Years D/o. Wahidullah Khan, R/o. Street Of Munna Safi Tyre, Moudhapara, Raipur (C.G.) (Non-Applicant) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Wasiullah Khan S/o. Masiullah Khan Aged About 48 Years R/o. Qr. No. 8-A, Street 5, Sector-1, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) Presn Add. Ward No. 8, Niyazi Complex Station Road, Takiapara, Durg (C.G.) (Applicant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 06/02/2025 1) The petitioner-wife has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg dated 24.01.2025 whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. 2) In the present petition, the petitioner has not depicted the facts of the present case. 3) In para-2, it is pleaded that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.01.2025 by filing this petition. It is further pleaded that an application for dissolution of marriage under provisions of Muslim Law was filed by the respondent-husband. It is also pleaded that on 03.01.2023, the respondent filed affidavits of himself and other AJINKYA PANSARE Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.02.07 10:58:09 +0530 2 witnesses under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. In para 4, it is pleaded that on 16.05.2024 PW/1 (Wasimullah Khan) was examined and cross-examined and thereafter, an application was moved for taking documents on record which was allowed and again the respondent was examined and cross-examined by the respective parties. In para 5, it is pleaded that the counsel engaged by the petitioner did not co-operate and the medical condition of the petitioner was not well, therefore, certain questions could not be put to the respondent’s witnesses. It is further pleaded that the application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC was moved for cross-examination of the respondent’s witnesses which was rejected by the learned Family Court. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submits that certain documents were filed by the respondent-husband but the opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses on those documents, therefore, the learned Court below ought to have allowed the application. 5) Heard. 6) It appears that the plaintiff and defendant were examined and cross- examined at length and thereafter, PW/1 was re-examined and re- cross-examined on the documents placed on record by the respondent-husband. 7) The application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC was moved on 24.01.2025. In para 4, it is stated that the counsel for the petitioner-wife could not cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent-husband on some points/issues. In para 5, it is stated that PW/1 was examined after filing of those documents (P/7 to P/9) and he was cross-examined 3 in this regard but some questions could not be put, therefore, an opportunity may be afforded. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 has discussed the power to recall witnesses and reopen evidence after deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A for further examination or cross-examination or to adduce additional material or evidence to fill up the lacunae. Relevant paras 9 to 11 are reproduced herein below:- 9. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code enables the court, at any stage of a suit, to recall any witness who has been examined (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) and put such questions to him as it thinks fit. The power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 can be exercised by the court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit requesting the court to exercise the said power. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the court to clarify any doubts it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. [Vide Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate - 2009 (4) SCC 410]. 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 moto, 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. 11. There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to re- open the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross- examination. Section 151 of the Code 4 provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Code to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In the absence of any provision providing for re- opening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for purposes other than securing clarification required by the court, the inherent power under section 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to re- open the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination. This inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the court to put such question to elicit any clarifications. 9) Evidently, the petitioner-wife by way of an application under Order 18 rule 17 of CPC is seeking permission of this Court to fill up the lacunae; earlier she was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and she was afforded sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, thus, there is no reason to afford an opportunity again. 10) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of K.K. Velusamy (supra), I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. 11) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya