Friday, May 1, 2026

Reopening of evidence and recall of witness — Purpose — Scope (Paras 9, 12) Reopening of evidence and recall of witness must be justified by necessity for adjudication of disputed facts. Where the purpose sought to be achieved can be addressed without such steps, reopening and recall become redundant and are liable to be refused.

advocatemmmohan

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Reopening of evidence and recall of witness — Purpose — Scope (Paras 9, 12)

Reopening of evidence and recall of witness must be justified by necessity for adjudication of disputed facts. Where the purpose sought to be achieved can be addressed without such steps, reopening and recall become redundant and are liable to be refused.


EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 — Section 58 — Admission — Effect (Paras 10, 11)

Facts admitted by a party do not require proof. Where a party admits dissimilarity of thumb impressions and offers an explanation for such dissimilarity, there is no necessity to establish the same through expert evidence.


EXPERT EVIDENCE — Necessity — Test (Paras 11, 12)

Reference to handwriting or fingerprint expert is not automatic. Where the fact sought to be proved is already admitted or not in dispute, sending documents for expert opinion is unnecessary.


REOPENING — For expert opinion — Not mandatory (Para 12)

For obtaining expert opinion on documents, reopening of evidence or recalling of witnesses is not a prerequisite, especially when such exercise does not materially advance the case.


DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT — Interference — Scope (Paras 12, 13)

The decision of the trial Court refusing to reopen evidence or send documents for expert opinion, when based on proper appreciation of facts and necessity, does not warrant interference under Article 227.


REVISION — Article 227 — Limited scope (Para 13)

Supervisory jurisdiction is not to be exercised to reappreciate factual discretion of the trial Court unless the order suffers from patent illegality or perversity.


FINAL RESULT (Para 14)

Civil Revision Petitions dismissed — Orders refusing reopening, recall, and expert reference upheld — No costs. 

No comments:

Post a Comment