HARISCHANDRA KESHAOLAL FULSUNGE Vs. MOTILAL SHIVSHANKAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application challenges the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, dated November 11, 2000 in Special Civil Suit No. 549/1994. No doubt, the Court has directed issuance of summons to defendant No. 2 to appear as Court witness, on the application moved by the plaintiff, however, the Court has recorded sound reasons for taking recourse to such action. The Court has found that due to special circumstances it had become necessary to summon the defendant No. 2 as Court witness. I find no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the lower Court, particularly enumerated in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the order under challenge.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the applicants contends that the order under challenge is in excess of authority in as much as the Court could have summoned the defendant No. 2 as Court witness only by invoking suo motu power under Order XVI, Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on (71 Calcutta Weekly Notes 747) The abovesaid decision was relied upon before the trial Court and the trial Court, in para 4 of its decision has rightly distinguished the said judgment on facts. It is difficult to accept the stand taken by the applicants that the Court cannot invoke suo motu powers and grant relief, which in substance, would be accepting the prayer made by the plaintiff in the application (Exhibit 98) that too after all the parties had filed pursis to close evidence. It is not possible to accept this contention for the simple reason that the inherent and suo motu powers of the Court cannot be limited by giving such a restricted meaning. It would depend on facts and circumstances of each case and the Court would exercise its discretion having regard to the circumstances that would necessitate passing appropriate order to do substantial justice to the parties. In the present case, the Court has found that there were special circumstances, which would necessitate examining the defendant No. 2 to find out the truth and, therefore, ordered that defendant No. 2 be summoned as Court witness. It hardly matters that the prayer made by the plaintiff below Exhibit 98 was in substance the same, especially when the trial Court having applied its mind and being more than satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice to summon the defendant No. 2 as Court witness, I find no reason to interfere in this revision application and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Revision application dismissed.