NANDITA CHAUDHARY Vs. SURAT SINGH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred by the petitioner against order dated 14th July, 2006 whereby an application under Section 151 CPC made by the petitioner for issuing summons of the witnesses made on the same date was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner filed a suit claiming damages of Rs.10 lac against the defendant on the ground of defamation. In the suit, the petitioner mentioned the name of her neighbor Satnam Aneja as the person in whose eyes the esteem and reputation of the petitioner got lowered due to an alleged false complaint made by the defendant. Similarly, she had desired to examine Shri B.S.Yadav for the same purpose. Affidavit of these two witnesses viz. Shri Satnam Aneja and Shri B.S.Yadav were filed in the Court in August, 2005. Thereafter, these witnesses were to appear for their cross examination in the Court. These witnesses did not appear for their examination in the Court despite opportunities. When the matter was listed on 25th May, 2006, the Court waited for the witness Satnam Aneja upto 2.20 p.m.. At 2.20 pm when the witness was not available, the Court observed that last opportunity was being granted to the witness for his cross examination on 14th July, 2006 and if the witness was not available, for any reason, his evidence shall be taken out of record. On 14th July, 2006 this application under Section 151 CPC was made by the petitioner stating that Shri Satnam Aneja was not able to come to the Court due to threat extended by the defendant. It was further stated that two witnesses viz. Satnam Aneja and Shri B.S.Yadav were avoiding coming to Court because of intimidation by the defendant. Application was opposed by the defendant on the ground that this was merely a ploy to seek adjournment and nine dates had already been given to the plaintiff for examination of witness but the witness was not examined. The petitioner, if wanted to summon the witnesses through Court process, the application should have been made well in time for summoning the witnesses. The application for examining the witnesses on the date of evidence itself was not maintainable. The trial Court after considering the fact that ample opportunities had already been given to the plaintiff and this was the last opportunity, dismissed the application and also observed that no steps were taken by the plaintiff for summoning witnesses for the date fixed.

(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Order 16 Rule 1 Sub Rule 2 CPC and stated that it was obligatory on the Court to issue summons for attendance of the witness on filing the application by the petitioner. Order 16 Rule 1 reads as under: 1. List of witnesses and summons to witnesses - (1) on or before such date as the Court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court.