Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dinesh Singh Bhim Singh, the defendant in a civil suit, challenged an order dated 26 August 2022 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasai, which allowed the plaintiffs' application (Exhibit 52) seeking issuance of witness summons. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs had failed to file a list of witnesses as required under Order XVI Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and therefore, under Order XVI Rule 1(3), they were required to show sufficient cause for summoning additional witnesses. The defendant argued that no sufficient cause was pleaded or shown, and thus the trial court erred in allowing the application. The plaintiffs, represented by Ms. Neeta P. Karnik, opposed the petition, arguing that the examination of the two witnesses was necessary for the just adjudication of the suit. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the requirement of showing sufficient cause under Order XVI Rule 1(3) is not an absolute bar; the court retains discretion to allow summoning of witnesses in the interest of justice. The court observed that procedural rules are handmaid of justice and should not be used to defeat substantial justice. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order. The court relied on the principle that rules of procedure are intended to advance justice, not to obstruct it.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Witness Summons - Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC - Sufficient Cause - The court held that the requirement of showing sufficient cause under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC is not mandatory in all circumstances; the court has discretion to allow summoning of witnesses even if no list was filed, as procedural rules are handmaid of justice. The trial court's order was upheld. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Procedural Rules - Handmaid of Justice - The court reiterated that rules of procedure are intended to advance justice and not to defeat it. Therefore, technical non-compliance with Order XVI Rule 1(1) CPC does not automatically bar the court from exercising its discretion under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could issue witness summons under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC when the plaintiffs had not filed a list of witnesses under Order XVI Rule 1(1) CPC and had not shown sufficient cause for the omission.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 26 August 2022 allowing the plaintiffs' application for witness summons.
Law Points
- Order XVI Rule 1 CPC
- Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC
- sufficient cause
- witness summons
- procedural rules are handmaid of justice
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 84
Writ Petition No.11185 of 2022
Mr. C.K. Tripathi for the Petitioner, Ms. Neeta P. Karnik for Respondents
Vinod Shobhraj Gajaria & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging trial court order allowing issuance of witness summons.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner/Defendant sought to quash the order dated 26 August 2022 allowing the plaintiffs' application for witness summons.
Filing Reason
Petitioner/Defendant contended that the plaintiffs failed to file a list of witnesses under Order XVI Rule 1(1) CPC and did not show sufficient cause for summoning additional witnesses under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasai) allowed the plaintiffs' application below Exhibit 52 on 26 August 2022, issuing witness summons.
Issues
Whether the trial court could issue witness summons under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC when the plaintiffs had not filed a list of witnesses under Order XVI Rule 1(1) CPC and had not shown sufficient cause for the omission.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner/Defendant: The requirement of showing sufficient cause under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC is mandatory; in absence of sufficient cause, the court has no discretion to allow the application. Relied on Anil Ramesh Bhusari Vs. Bhaskar Ramesh Bhusari.
Respondents/Plaintiffs: Examination of the two witnesses is necessary for just adjudication; the trial court correctly exercised its discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
The requirement of showing sufficient cause under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC is not an absolute bar; the court retains discretion to allow summoning of witnesses in the interest of justice. Procedural rules are handmaid of justice and should not be used to defeat substantial justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The objection of the Petitioner/Defendant to the order dated 26 August 2022 is that the Respondents/Plaintiffs in the first instance had failed to file list of witnesses as mandated under Order XVI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure.
He would submit that the trial Court noticed the hurdle but has attempted to surmount the same by erroneously holding that the rules of procedures are handmaid of justice and not mistress of justice.
Procedural History
The trial court (Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasai) passed an order on 26 August 2022 allowing the plaintiffs' application below Exhibit 52 for issuance of witness summons. The defendant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging that order. The High Court heard the matter on 25 January 2023 and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XVI Rule 1, Order XVI Rule 1(3)
