Courts May Reopen Evidence u/s 151 CPC in Interests of Justice

Source: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Why in News?

Justice Sanjay Dhar of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court decided Mangat Ram v. Shano Devi (2026). The Court partly allowed a petition against a Family Court order permitting the wife to recall witnesses and lead additional evidence after closure of evidence, explaining the distinct scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of the CPC. 

What was the Background of Mangat Ram v. Shano Devi (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner (husband) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the grounds of desertion, non-compliance with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed against the wife under Section 9, and cruelty. 
• The respondent (wife) contested the petition, and the trial court framed issues on cruelty, desertion and the relief to be granted. 
• Both parties led evidence, examining themselves and three witnesses each. 

Application to reopen evidence: 

• After evidence closed and the case was listed for final arguments, the wife filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. 
• She sought to recall the husband and his witnesses for further cross-examination, and to examine two new witnesses. 
• She stated that she had recently learnt that the husband had, during the subsistence of their marriage, married another woman and had three children with her. 
• She came to know of this when she met the husband’s alleged son-in-law, married to the husband’s alleged daughter from the second marriage. 

Order of the Family Court: 

• The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jammu allowed the application. 
• It permitted recall of the husband and two of his witnesses, and examination of the two new witnesses. 
• It also imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the husband. 

Challenge before the High Court: 

• The husband contended that:  
  • There was no need to reopen evidence; 
  • Costs could not be imposed without first deciding whether he had in fact entered into a second marriage; and 
  • The order was illegal and passed without application of mind. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC: 

• The Rule empowers the court to recall any witness already examined and put such questions as it thinks fit. 
• Its main purpose is to enable the court to clarify its own doubts about the evidence led by the parties. 
• It cannot be used to let parties recall witnesses for further examination-in-chief or cross-examination, or to bring in additional material that could not be produced earlier. 
• Relying on Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate (2009), the Court noted that the power must be exercised sparingly and not merely to help a party fill gaps or omissions in its evidence. 
• In K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011), the Supreme Court held that the power may be exercised suo motu or on application, but is discretionary and meant only for clarification. 

On Section 151 CPC: 

• Section 151 preserves the inherent power of the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process. 
• As held in K.K. Velusamy, where the Code has no provision for reopening evidence or recalling witnesses for purposes other than clarification, Section 151 may be invoked in appropriate cases. 
• The Court can therefore permit a party to lead additional evidence discovered after closure of evidence, if it is necessary in the interests of justice. 

Application to the facts: 

• The husband argued that the wife already knew of the second marriage, as she had filed a complaint under Section 494 of the Ranbir Penal Code, which was dismissed in 2014. 
• The Court noted that the earlier complaint concerned a different woman and that allegation was not proved, whereas the present allegation related to a different person. 
• The wife had placed on record documents, including an Aadhaar card, a matrimonial petition and a marriage agreement, which prima facie showed the husband as the father of the alleged daughter. 
• The evidence related to the husband’s conduct and was relevant and necessary in the interests of justice. 
• If a second marriage were proved, it would bear on whether the wife was justified in not living with the husband, and would be a defence against the allegation of cruelty. 

On recall of the husband: 

• Since important evidence was being introduced, it was necessary to recall the husband to clarify the resulting doubts under Order XVIII Rule 17. 

On recall of the husband’s other witnesses: 

• Recalling the husband’s two witnesses was unnecessary, as they had already stated in cross-examination that they were unaware of any second marriage. 

On imposition of costs: 

• Costs could not be imposed because the second marriage was yet to be established. 
• Without such a finding, it could not be said that the husband had concealed the fact. 

Directions: 

• The petition was partly allowed. 
• The Family Court’s order was set aside to the extent of imposing costs of ₹10,000 and directing recall of the husband’s two witnesses. 
• The order was upheld to the extent of recalling the husband and permitting the wife to examine the two new witnesses. 
• The trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with the High Court’s observations. 

What is Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC? 

About: 

• Order XVIII deals with the hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses. 
• Rule 17 provides that the court may, at any stage of a suit, recall any witness who has been examined and put such questions to them as it thinks fit, subject to the law of evidence. 

Key principles: 

• The power is meant to enable the court to clarify doubts about the evidence. 
• It may be exercised by the court on its own motion or on an application by a party. 
• It is discretionary and must be used sparingly. 
• It cannot be used to fill lacunae or omissions in a party’s evidence. 

What is Section 151 of the CPC? 

About: 

• Section 151 provides that nothing in the Code limits or affects the inherent power of the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 

Principles governing its exercise (K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, 2011): 

• It is not a substantive provision that creates or confers jurisdiction. 
• It may be used only where the Code does not deal with a procedural aspect. 
• The court cannot use it to do what is prohibited by law. 
• It must be exercised with care and circumspection, and only where absolutely necessary. 
• The bona fides of the applicant must not be in doubt. 
• Its exercise must serve the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court.