Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s M.M. Corporation, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an interlocutory order dated 23rd April 2010 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, which closed the plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the respondent, Juhu Vile Parle Development, and examined himself as PW1 on 22nd March 2010. The matter was adjourned to 7th April 2010 for recording evidence of other witnesses. On that day, the plaintiff sought an adjournment, which was granted, and the matter was adjourned to 16th April 2010. On 16th April 2010, the plaintiff again sought an adjournment, and the court granted it as a last chance, adjourning to 23rd April 2010. On 23rd April 2010, the plaintiff made an application for adjournment, which was refused, and the court closed the plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff contended that it wanted to examine one Mr. Nirmal Asrani, a former employee of the defendant, but did not know his address and sought the defendant's assistance, which was unhelpful. The High Court noted that the plaintiff had not filed any list of witnesses as required under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC. The court observed that Order 16 Rule 1(3) permits a party to call a witness not named in the list on showing sufficient cause, and Rule 1A allows a party to bring a witness without summons. However, the plaintiff failed to take any steps to produce the witness despite multiple adjournments. The High Court held that the trial court's order closing evidence was an interlocutory order and that there was no reason to interfere, as the plaintiff had been given sufficient opportunities. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Witness List - Order 16 Rule 1 CPC - Requirement to File List of Witnesses - The plaintiff failed to file any list of witnesses as required under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC within 15 days of settlement of issues. The court held that the plaintiff cannot claim a right to examine witnesses without complying with this procedural requirement. (Para 3) B) Civil Procedure - Examination of Witnesses - Order 16 Rule 1(3) and Rule 1A CPC - Discretion to Permit Additional Witnesses - The court noted that even if a witness is not named in the list, the court may permit calling such witness on showing sufficient cause under Rule 1(3), or the party may bring the witness without summons under Rule 1A. However, the plaintiff did not take any steps to produce the witness despite multiple adjournments. (Para 3) C) Civil Procedure - Closing of Evidence - Interlocutory Order - Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order closing evidence, as it was an interlocutory order and the plaintiff had been given multiple opportunities (adjournments on 7th, 16th, and 23rd April 2010) but failed to produce any witness. The court held that the trial court's discretion was properly exercised. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in closing the plaintiff's evidence for failure to produce witnesses despite multiple adjournments and without filing a witness list.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the trial court's order closing the plaintiff's evidence was an interlocutory order and that there was no merit in interfering with it. The plaintiff had been given multiple opportunities but failed to produce any witness.
Law Points
- Order 16 Rule 1 CPC requires parties to file list of witnesses within 15 days of settlement of issues
- Order 16 Rule 1(3) CPC permits calling additional witnesses on showing sufficient cause
- Order 16 Rule 1A CPC allows party to bring witness without summons
- Interlocutory orders are not ordinarily interfered with in writ jurisdiction
