DWARKA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE main revision petition was heard today with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE defendant petitioner filed a list of witnesses under Order 16 Rule 1 C. P. C. on August 13, 1981 in the trial court. THE trial court rejected the list of witnesses on four grounds-mentioned in that order. THE list did not contain the father's name of some of the witnesses; in the case of some other witnesses the address was not complete; in the case of some other witnesses the expenses for summoning these witnesses were not deposited, although these witnesses were residents of places out-side the town of Shardar-shahar, where the trial court is situated. Moreover in the case of all the witnesses, whose names were included in the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner, the purpose for which the witnesses are pre posed to be examined was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there were any defects in the list of witnesses, as have been pointed out by the learned trial court, the petitioner should have been allowed some time to remove the defects. The defendant petitioner had filed a list of his witnesses undoubtedly within the time specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 16 and as such the entire list of witnesses could not have been rejected. However, some defects have been pointed out in the list of witnesses by the trial court, in its order dated August 13, 1981 and the defendant petitioner could have removed such defects in case the trial court would have granted him some time to remove the the defects, before proceeding to reject the list of his witnesses. Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party has not been able to show that the entire list of witnesses submitted by the defendant petitioner was liable to be rejected on account of the defects pointed out by the trial court. There could be no doubt that sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 16 C. P. C. directs the parties to present a list of witnesses, when they propose to call to give evidence or to produce documents, within the time specified in that sub-rule and the parties filing such list of witnesses would be entitled to obtain summonses for the attendance of such persons whose names are included in the list of witnesses filed by that party. The list of witnesses should specify not only the names of the witnesses, but also their father's name and their full and complete address, so that the identity of the witnesses could be properly established. If the list of witnesses filed by the defendant petitioner was incomplete in the sense that full and complete addresses of the witnesses was not furnished, then the defendant should have been directed to file the necessary particulars about the parentage and addresses of the concerned witnesses. So far as stating the purpose for which the witnesses are proposed to be examined and depositing the expenses for such witnesses, it may be observed that the same need not necessarily be complied with at the time of filing an application under sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 16; but that could be done at the time when the witnesses are required to be summoned. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 16 C P. C. clearly provides that the party desirous of obtaining summons for the attendance of the witnesses is required to file an application stating the purpose for which such witnesses are proposed to be summoned. This procedure is required to be completed before the witnesses are sought to be summoned by the party concerned. Thus, the defendant should file an application, stating the purpose for which each of the witnesses, who may be desired to be summoned by him is proposed to be examined, at the time when the defendant is called upon to examine his evidence and he is required to obtain summons for the attendance of such witnesses. Similarly, the amount requisite for defraying the travelling and other expenses of the witnesses have also to be deposited at the time when the party applies for summoning of witnesses, as required under Order 16 Rule 2 C. P. C. The list of witnesses filed by the petitioner could not have been rejected by the trial court on the ground that the expenses for the witnesses have not been deposited, because the stage when the parties are required to file the list of witnesses under sub-rule (1) of Rule (1) of Order 16 C. P. C. is not the stage when the amount for defraying the expenses of the witnesses has to be deposited. Rule 2 of Order 16 clearly lays down that the party applying for the summons is required to pay the amount necessary for defraying the travelling and other expenses of the witnesses before the summons are issued and within the period fixed by the court. Thus, the amount is required to be deposited by the party for defraying the expenses of the witnesses at the stage when the party proceeds to apply for summoning his witnesses and not at the stage of filing the list of witnesses under Order 16 Rule 1 (1) C. P. C.
(3.) IN the present case, even the witnesses of the plaintiff have not yet been examined, after the plaintiff's evidence would be over, then only the stage would be reached, when the defendant would be called upon to examine his evidence and at that stage the defendant petitioner would be required to file an application showing the purpose for which each witness is proposed to be examined by him and also to deposit the amount required for defraying the expenses of the witnesses sought to be summoned. IN this view of the matter, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the list of witnesses filed by the defendant on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 (2) and Order 16 Rule 2 C. P. C. for, as indicated above, that stage has not been reached as yet. Of course, the defendant would have to furnish the complete particulars of the witnesses sought to be examined, including their father's name and full and complete present addresses. The defendant may remove the defects within 4 weeks. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the Munsif, Shardarshahar dated August 13, 1981 is set aside and the learned Munsif is directed to take on the record the list of witnesses filed by the defendant-petitioner on August 13, 1981, subject to the condition that the defendant should supply the complete address of the witnesses mentioned in the list, including their father's name and other particulars regarding their addresses. In case, the defendant fails to furnish the particulars of any of the witnesses included in the list, then the names of such witnesses whose addresses are found to be incomplete should be struck off from the list of witnesses by the trial court; but the list of remaining witnesses should be taken on record. .;