Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated May 3, 2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon.
(2.) THE petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the trial Judge made an application for summoning official witnesses. The request has been declined by the learned trial Judge by reasoning as follows: - However, it must be noted that no person should be allowed to take undue advantage of the statutory provisions in support of its own lackadaisical attitude. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff have not given any reasonable justification about the failure to include the names of additional witnesses in the first application. Analyzing the current factual scenario in the light of statutory provisions this court is satisfied that the plaintiff has failed to establish any ground as mandated Order 16 Rule 1(3) CPC to obtain the assistance of this court in summoning the said witness. For the benefit of the trial Court, two decisions which have been cited by MR.Sanjay Vij, learned counsel in support of this case are referred to which explain the legal position under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The first is the decision of R.S. Sarkaria, J. in Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh and another vs. Firm Raj Singh Baldev Kishen, AIR 1969 Punjab and Haryana 197 where it has been ruled in para. 14 as follows: - 14. It must be remembered that R.9 of Order 16 which provides that summonses must be served on the witnesses in sufficient time is only a Rule in favour of the witnesses. It enjoins due diligence on the party. But it does not empower the Court to refuse the issue of summons to a witness on the ground of late application. Summonses cannot be refused on the ground that the party had refused to bring his witnesses himself or to carry out an illegal order of the Court for Dasti service on the witnesses. Only if the Court finds that the issue of the summonses would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, has it the inherent power to refuse to summon witnesses. (See : AIR 1958 Andh Pra. 254).
(3.) THE second case is the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gopala Krishna Murthy vs. B. Ramchander Rao and others, : AIR 1973 Andhra Pradesh 309 in which the law has been explained in para. 9 and of the principles underlining Order 16 Rule 1 which can profitably read to understand the subject: - 9. A reading of the above authorities leads me to lay down the following propositions. (1) Under Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P.C. it is the right of the party at any stage of the suit to make an application to the Court seeking that summons be issued to a witness either to give evidence or to produce documents. (2) The Court is not entitled to refuse such an application on the ground that it might cause delay in the trial of the suit on the adjourned date of the suit. (3) If the summons is not served by the adjourned date of the suit the party who filed the application to issue the summons would take the risk. (4) If an application for adjournment is made at the instance of the party who applied under Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P.C. it is for the Court to consider whether or not an adjournment should be granted. (5) The Court may not refuse to order an application under Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P.C. on the ground that the evidence, if produced, may not be of any help to the applicant. (6) Though Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P.C. does not in terms impose any restrictions on the Court, the Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction may refuse to issue summons in an application made under O. 16, R.1, Civil P.C. in those cases where it is satisfied that the application filed was not bona fide or was vexatious or granting the application would result in an abuse of process of the Court. Except in these three above contingencies the application must almost always be ordered.;