GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. B RAMACHANDER RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed to revise the order of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, made in I. A. No. 163 of 1968 in O. S. No. 32 of 1967 on his file. The petitioner filed the said I. A. to issue summons to the Manager, Shankermut, Hyderabad to produce the documents of title deeds. It is also contained another distinct prayer to direct Shankermut to allow the Commissioner and the Engineer to take measurements of their site also. The second prayer in the petition in so far as it seeks a direction to allow the Commissioner and engineer to take measurements of the Shankermut is concerned had been rightly deleted by the petitioner. The application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that it was not necessary for the Court to look into the documents of the Shankermut and that the petition was filed only to delay the trial of the suit. As the Manager of the Shankermut had already replied to the plaintiff that the documents were not available with the local office at the Mut and the documents were kept in the Head Office, Belgam, Mysore State, the learned Judge considered that the crucial point for determination by him was whether it was necessary that the documents of Shankermut should be looked into for the purpose of this trial and to enable the Commissioner to take the measurements of the Shankermut site also with reference to the title deeds of Shankermut. I think the approach made by the Court below to the application filed by the petitioner was wholly erroneous and it resulted in its failure to exercise the jurisdiction which vested in the Court, namely, issuing summonses under Order XVI, Rule 1, Civil P. C. In considering the question the lower Court observed that Shankermut, which was sought to be summoned for producing its documents of title, was not a party to the suit. I do not know why the Court below thought it fit to mention the facts when it is self evident that the Shankermut was not a party and the plaintiff was not seeking any relief against Shankermut as such. It is plain that any person other than a party may always be summoned to produce documents in his possession or to give oral evidence on behalf of a party who makes an application in that behalf to the Court. The Court below in the course of its discussion had observed :--

(2.) The Court below has not kept in mind the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P. C. in dismissing the present application. Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P. C. provides for summons to be issued to witness who attend to give evidence or produce documents. It reads :

(3.) In Bhagchand v. Musaji, AIR 1923 Nag 58, Batten, J. C. and Hallifax, A. J. C. had to consider the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P. C. Their Lordships referred to an earlier case of Moti v, Kanya, ( 1909 ) 4 Ind Cas 797 of that Court. They observed that that decision had held that under O. 16, R. 1, Civil P. C. the Court had no discretion in the matter of an application for summonses on witnesses if such an application is made before the day of hearing. The hearing may not be concluded on the date fixed and an adjournment may take place in the usual course of the progress of the trial and the Court cannot refuse to allow any of the parties to reap the benefit of such an adjournment in the matter of giving evidence. They also referred to Indro Chunder Baboo v. Hamilton Grant Dunlop, ( 1868 ) 9 WR 530 and quoted the following observation therefrom :