The Supreme Court reiterated on August 4 that Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC grants courts only a limited power to recall witnesses. The provision is not a tool for filling lacunae in a party's case or enabling fresh examination. Recall is permissible only to put specific questions that could not have been asked earlier due to some oversight or for clarification of ambiguous testimony. The court emphasised that the power must be exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice.

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is a narrow procedural provision that allows a court to recall any witness who has already been examined, for the purpose of putting specific questions. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this power is not an open-ended license for a party to fill gaps in its evidence or to improve a weak case. The court acts suo motu or on application, but the trigger must always be the court's own need for clarification — not the party's desire to repair its case.

The distinction is critical: recall under Rule 17 is fundamentally different from re-examination under Order XVIII Rule 13. Re-examination arises after cross-examination and must relate to matters arising out of cross-examination. Rule 17 recall, by contrast, is purely court-driven and discretionary.

For CLAT PG purposes, the examiner typically presents a scenario where a party seeks recall after realising its witness forgot to mention a crucial fact, or where counsel claims oversight. The correct answer is that such a request would be refused because Rule 17 is not a mechanism to improve a party's evidentiary position — it is a tool to aid the court's own understanding. The constitutional underpinning is the court's inherent power to do justice, but the CPC provision itself limits the scope strictly. Courts have held that liberal use of this power would amount to allowing a second trial, which is impermissible.