SIRENA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR VISHWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Com.O.S.No.432/2021 on the file of LXXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru are before this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of I.A.No.27 filed under Order XVI Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking to issue proclamation against the witness.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Abhilash Vaidyanathan, for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Gaurav G.K., for the respondent-plaintiff and perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners-defendants were permitted to take out witness summons to one Sri.Jyothiranjan Pattanaik and accordingly summons was served on the said witness. Even after service of witness summons, the said person has failed to appear before the trial Court. Since the evidence of said witness is absolutely necessary, the petitioners-defendants filed I.A.No.27 under Order XVI Rule 10(2) of CPC praying to issue proclamation against the said witness Sri.Jyothiranjan Pattanaik. Learned counsel would contend that the trial Court instead of considering the said application in terms of Order XVI Rule 10 of CPC, only on the ground that the defendants have filed the application just to delay the proceedings, rejected the application. It is his submission that the trial Court has a duty to consider the application in terms of Rule 10 of Order XVI of CPC and to examine as to whether proclamation needs to be issued against the said witness on whom witness summons has been served.