The High Court dismissed the Curative Petition challenging the trial court's rejection of an application to recall a witness to mark signatures on admitted documents. The Court held Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is for exceptional cases and not for routine remedial omissions.
Curative Petition No. 26 of 2023 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 26 of 2023
Purnamasi Sahu and another
…. Petitioners
Mr.Prafulla Chandra Das, Advocate
-versus-
Shirley Hari and others …. Opp. Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
02.02.2023
by learned Senior Civil Judge (LR & LTV), Jhasuguda is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC filed by the Plaintiffs/Petitioners has been rejected.
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
trial Court should have allowed the application. He accordingly, prays for setting aside order under Annexure-1 and to allow the petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall PW-1 for further examination.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
s.s.satapathy
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application to recall a witness to mark previously admitted documents is maintainable under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC.
Whether Omission in marking signatures during evidence can be remedied by a petition to recall the witness.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to recall the witness as the signatures can be taken on judicial notice during hearing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Purnamasi Sahu
Shirley Hari
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
