Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in K.K.Velusamy vs N.Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275, wherein in Para-19 it was observed as under.

“19. 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 the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the 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. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly the 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 http://www.judis.nic.in to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs.”