ASHOK KUMAR CHOPRA Vs. VISANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel. The petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that Court process was issued and the witness in question refused to accept the same, the trial Court passed an order that the petitioner would have no right to examine the witness. Earlier the petitioner had shown willingness to bring the witness at his own responsibility. The witness was not present on the date fixed that is on 16th of January, 1996. The trial Court as noticed above has passed an order that the petitioner would not have a right now to get that witness examined. R.S. Sarkaria, J. who later adorned the Bench of Supreme Court of India in Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh v. Firm Raj Singh Baldev Kishan, AIR 1969 Punj and Har 197, observed as under in these matter (Para 7):-

(2.) The learned counsel submits that once the Court chooses to give its assistance then it should not be withdrawn.

(3.) Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and the judicial precedent noted above the petitioner is given one opportunity to get the witness summoned. The petitioner would indicate to the Court below the name of the witness. The petitioner would be at liberty to take assistance of the Court process-server also. If requested process-server be also deputed. It is, however, made clear, that the responsibility to get the above steps taken would be purely of the petitioner. Let the requisite process be issued for the appearance of the witness for 15-2-1996. In case there the witness, is served and he fails to appear then, Bailable warrants be issued for appearance for 22-2-1996.