MINOR DIPIKA Vs. C.G. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
C.G. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Writ Petition No. 4200/2005 filed by Minor Dipika through her next friend Setram against the C.G. State Electricity Board & Writ Petition No. 1804/2005 filed by Minor Nalini through her next friend Ganesh Dhoba against the C.G. State Electricity Board are being disposed of by the common order, as in these writ petitions similar question of law is involved.
(2.) By these writ petitions the petitioners have questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of orders dated 10.8.2005 passed by learned District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit Nos. 5A/2004 & 6A/2004 whereby learned District Judge has rejected the applications filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order 16, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Code') for summoning the witnesses along with original records mentioned in the application.
(3.) Brief facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are that the petitioner herein who are students of Government Primary School, Satapali, have filed the above mentioned civil suits before the District Court Raigarh for awarding compensation against the respondents on the ground that on account of negligence of the respondents the petitioners had suffered electric shock when they were in school. After issuance of summons, the respondents herein have filed their written statement. On 5.2.2005 learned District Judge framed issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and on that day itself counsel for both the parties orally submitted that, each of the party wants to examine five witnesses, therefore, the petitioners were directed to file affidavit as per provisions of Order 18, Rule 4 of the CPC. Admittedly list of witnesses have not been filed by the parties. On 3.8.2005 applications under Order 16, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC were filed on behalf of the petitioners in their respective suits for summoning the witnesses along with original records named in the said applications. Reply of the said applications was filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned District Judge vide impugned orders rejected the applications of the petitioners on the ground that as no list of witnesses has been filed by the petitioners, therefore, they are not entitled to summon the witnesses as the provisions of Order 16, Rules 1 and 1A of the CPC are subject to Sub-rule (3), therefore, witnesses cannot be summoned.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.