Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), delineates the procedural framework for the hearing of suits and the examination of witnesses in Indian civil courts. This order ensures a structured and fair trial process, safeguarding the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants.

1. RIGHT TO BEGIN

According to Rule 1 of Order XVIII, the plaintiff typically has the right to begin presenting their case. This aligns with Sections 101 to 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which place the burden of proof on the party asserting a fact. However, if the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff but contends that, based on legal grounds or additional facts, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought, the defendant may be granted the right to begin.

This principle was elucidated in the case of Om Prakash vs. Amit Choudhary & Ors. (2019), where the Delhi High Court emphasized that the defendant is given the right to begin only when the facts alleged by the plaintiff are admitted, but the entitlement to relief is contested on legal grounds or additional facts.

2. STATEMENT AND PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

Rule 2 outlines the sequence of presenting cases:

• The party with the right to begin states their case and produces evidence supporting the issues they are obligated to prove.

• Subsequently, the opposing party states their case, produces their evidence, and may address the court on the entire case.

• The party beginning may then reply generally on the whole case.

This structured approach ensures clarity and allows each party a fair opportunity to present their arguments and evidence.

3. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

The examination of witnesses is a critical component of the trial process, governed by Rules 4 and 5:

• Examination-in-Chief: As per Rule 4(1), the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit, with copies supplied to the opposite party. This amendment aims to expedite the trial process by reducing the time spent on oral examinations in court.

• Cross-Examination and Re-Examination: The cross-examination and re-examination of witnesses are conducted orally in open court. This allows the court to observe the demeanor of witnesses and assess their credibility effectively.

In F.D.C. Ltd. v. Federation Of Medical Representatives Association India (FMRAI) And Others (2003), the Bombay High Court addressed issues related to the recording of evidence under Order XVIII Rules 4 and 5, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural norms to ensure a fair trial.

4. RECALL AND EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

Rule 17 empowers the court to recall any witness who has been examined and may put such questions to them as it thinks fit. This provision is intended to clarify any ambiguities in the evidence. However, courts have held that this power should be exercised sparingly and not used to fill gaps in a party’s case.

In K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275, the Supreme Court held that while Order XVIII Rule 17 enables the court to recall any witness at any stage of a suit, this power should not be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined.

5. ADJOURNMENTS

Rule 1 of Order XVII of the CPC deals with adjournments, stating that the court may, if sufficient cause is shown, grant time to the parties or adjourn the hearing of the suit. However, such adjournments should not be granted more than three times to a party during the hearing of the suit. This provision aims to prevent undue delays in the trial process.

6. LEADING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Order XVIII Rule 17-A, introduced by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976, allowed parties to produce additional evidence at a later stage of the proceedings. However, this rule was omitted by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999, reflecting the intent to discourage delays and prevent parties from filling gaps in their evidence at a later stage.

7. PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

After the completion of evidence and hearing of arguments, the court proceeds to pronounce judgment. Order XX Rule 1 mandates that the court should pronounce judgment in open court, either at once or on a future date not exceeding 30 days from the conclusion of arguments. This ensures transparency and timely delivery of justice.

8. CASE LAWS AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

Several judicial pronouncements have clarified the application of Order XVIII:

• In Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (D) Thr Lrs. & Ors. (2016), the Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be exercised sparingly and not to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined.

• The Calcutta High Court, in a 2024 judgment, clarified that Order XVIII Rule 17 is intended for the court to clarify any doubts by recalling a witness and is not meant for parties to fill in lacunae in their cases.

9. PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES

The principles underlying Order XVIII include:

• Audi Alteram Partem: This legal maxim means “hear the other side,” ensuring that both parties have an opportunity to present their case.

• Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Eadem Causa: This principle states that no one should be vexed twice for the same cause, emphasizing the need for finality in litigation.

10. AMENDMENTS AND REFORMS

The procedural aspects of Order XVIII have undergone amendments to enhance the efficiency of the trial process.