Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition to Recall Witness After 27 Years: Emphasizes “Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt,” Affirms Limited Scope of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, and Restricts Article 227 Interference in Trial Court Decisions

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a trial court order that had rejected an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The application sought to recall and examine a key witness 27 years after the filing of the suit. The High Court upheld the trial court’s ruling that the petitioner was attempting to fill gaps in their case and reaffirmed that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly.

Facts of the Case:

1. The dispute originated from a suit for specific performance filed in 1997 based on an Agreement to Sell executed between the plaintiff and the defendant.
2. Due to family disputes, a Memorandum of Settlement was executed, and the ownership of the disputed property was transferred to another individual.
3. Following the death of the substituted plaintiff, his legal heirs were brought on record in 2006.
4. The petitioner’s evidence was closed on 19.11.2014 as per the trial court’s orders.
5. A Chamber Appeal challenging the closure of evidence was dismissed on 17.07.2015.
6. The defendant’s evidence was concluded in 2024, and the matter was at the final arguments stage when the petitioner sought to recall Gaurav Trehan, the original plaintiff and signatory to the Agreement to Sell.
7. The trial court dismissed the application, citing undue delay and lack of diligence.

Issues Before the Court:

1. Whether recalling a witness after 27 years was legally justified under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.
2. Whether the trial court’s decision to deny the recall was incorrect.
3. Whether the High Court could exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the trial court’s order.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that Gaurav Trehan, the original plaintiff and signatory to the Agreement to Sell, was not examined earlier due to acrimonious relations among the parties.
• The witness’s testimony was crucial for proving the validity of the Agreement to Sell.
• The failure to examine him earlier should not prevent the court from allowing his testimony, as it was essential for the proper adjudication of the case.
• The trial court erred in dismissing the application on procedural grounds when substantive justice required the witness to be heard.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• No arguments were recorded in the judgment as the respondents did not appear before the court.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Order 18 Rule 17 CPC: Limited Scope of Recall of Witnesses

• Order 18 Rule 17 CPC allows the court to recall and examine any witness at any stage if it is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case.
• However, this provision cannot be used to fill gaps in evidence or to allow a party to rectify strategic mistakes made earlier in the proceedings.

2. Application of the Legal Maxim “Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt”

• This Latin legal principle translates to “the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.”
• The trial court applied this principle to hold that the petitioner had ample opportunity to examine the witness earlier but failed to do so.

3. Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 of the Constitution

• Article 227 of the Constitution grants the High Court the power of superintendence over all subordinate courts.
• However, the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited. The High Court does not function as an appellate court and cannot re-evaluate evidence.
• Interference is justified only in cases of gross judicial impropriety, illegality, or perversity.

Precedent Analysis:

The High Court relied on Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181, which established the following principles:

• Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly.
• The High Court cannot interfere simply because another view is possible.
• The power of intervention is justified only if the findings of the lower court are perverse or lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Applying these principles, the High Court held that there was no justification for interference, as the trial court’s decision was legally sound and based on well-established legal principles.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Finality of the Closure of Evidence:
   • The petitioner’s evidence was closed in 2014, and a Chamber Appeal against this closure was dismissed in 2015.
   • Since the Chamber Appeal was not overturned, the order attained finality.
2. Delay of 27 Years in Seeking Recall of Witness:
   • The application to recall the witness was filed in 2024, nearly 27 years after the suit was instituted.
   • The High Court held that such an inordinate delay was unjustifiable.
3. Lack of Diligence in Producing the Witness Earlier:
   • The petitioner claimed that the witness could not be examined earlier due to acrimonious relations.
   • However, the court was not convinced, as there was no evidence to show that any attempt was made to summon the witness through court process.
4. Case was Already at Final Arguments Stage:
   • The defendant’s evidence had already concluded, and the matter was listed for final arguments.
   • The recall application was clearly an attempt to re-open the case and fill gaps in evidence, which the court found impermissible.
5. Litigation Must Come to an End:
   • The court emphasized the need for finality in litigation.
   • Allowing the application would set a bad precedent where litigants could delay proceedings indefinitely by filing belated applications.

Conclusion:

• The High Court found no illegality or judicial impropriety in the trial court’s order.
• It ruled that the delay of 27 years was inexcusable and that the petitioner’s attempt to recall the witness at this late stage was an abuse of process.
• The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Implications of the Judgment:

1. Witness Recall Cannot Be Used to Fill Evidentiary Gaps:
   • This ruling clarifies that Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is not meant for strategic re-litigation.
2. Delayed Applications Will Not Be Entertained:
   • The judgment discourages belated applications, ensuring that parties exercise diligence during the evidence stage.
3. Limited Scope of Article 227 Jurisdiction:
   • The High Court reinforced that it does not act as an appellate court and will not interfere with trial court decisions unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice.
4. Promoting Finality in Litigation:
   • By denying a recall application filed 27 years after the suit was initiated, the court sends a strong message against unnecessary delays in legal proceedings.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Modifies Maintenance Amount Under Section 125 Cr.P.C.: “Able-Bodied Husband Must Support Wife and Children Despite Financial Claims,” Reduces Maintenance to ₹3,600 Per Respondent and Emphasizes Minimum Wage Assessment