“In K.K. Velusamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 while dealing with the power of Court under Order 18, Rule 17 this Court held that :-

“Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code enables 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 Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit requesting Court to exercise the said power. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable 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.

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 Court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo moto, or at the request of any party, so that 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.

We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist Court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and Court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, Court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. Court should first award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, Court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs.

Ideally, the recording of evidence should be continuous, followed by arguments, without any gap. Courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. The amended Code expects them to do so. If that is done, applications for adjournments, re-opening, recalling, or interim measures could be avoided. The more the period of pendency, the more the number of interlocutory applications which in turn add to the period of pendency.”

We have referred to the said to show the purpose of filing an application under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code. In this context, you may also fruitfully refer to Bagai Construction, (2013) 14 SCC 1.”

– Hon’ble Justice Dipak Misra, Gayathri v. Girish, [Civil Appeal No. 14061 of 2016].