Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajendra Mohanlal Rathi, was the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 123/2005 filed by the respondents for eviction and possession on the ground of bonafide requirement. The petitioner filed his written statement on 27.01.2006, issues were framed, and evidence of the plaintiff and some defense witnesses was recorded. The petitioner filed an application (Exh. 190) seeking witness summons for Shri M.C. Sahastrabuddhe, the stamp vendor from whom both parties had purchased the stamp paper for the agreement (Exh. 145). The Trial Court rejected the application on 02.03.2011 on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a list of witnesses as required under Order XVI CPC. A review application was also rejected on 29.03.2011. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, considered whether the rejection was justified. It held that the requirement of filing a list of witnesses under Order XVI is directory, not mandatory, and the Court has discretion to allow examination of a witness even if not included in the list, particularly when the witness is crucial for the just decision of the case. The High Court set aside both impugned orders and allowed the application for witness summons, directing the Trial Court to issue summons to the stamp vendor and permit the petitioner to examine him.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Witness Summons - Order XVI CPC - Rejection of Application - The Trial Court rejected the application for issuing witness summons to a stamp vendor on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a list of witnesses as mandated by Order XVI CPC. The High Court held that the requirement of filing a list of witnesses is directory and not mandatory, and that the Court has discretion to permit examination of a witness even if not included in the list, especially when the witness is essential for just adjudication. The impugned orders were set aside and the application was allowed. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for witness summons on the ground that the petitioner had not filed a list of witnesses as required under Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 02.03.2011 and 29.03.2011, and directed the Trial Court to issue witness summons to Shri M.C. Sahastrabuddhe and permit the petitioner to examine him.
Law Points
- Order XVI CPC
- witness summons
- list of witnesses
- bonafide requirement
- eviction suit
- tenant rights
- procedural fairness
