NASEEMA Vs. B NAGESWARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the order of the trial court dismissing the petition to issue summons to a witness.

(2.) RULE 1 of Order 16 CPC deals with issuance of summons by the Court to witnesses, who are shown in the list of witnesses filed by the parties to the suit. Revision petitioners admittedly did not file a list of witnesses intended to be examined by them.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that inasmuch as the witness whom the revision petitioners want to summon as a witness on their behalf, was summoned by the respondents/plaintiffs as a witness on their behalf and as they failed to examine that person though he was present in the court, revision petitioners want to examine that person as a witness on their behalf, and so, even if they did not file a list of witnesses they can seek summons to that person as a witness on their behalf. I see no force in the said contention. Failure of a party to examine a witness summoned by him, though he is present in Court, would not automatically clothe the other side with a right to seek his being summoned as their witness, even though he is not cited as a witness on their behalf in the list of witnesses filed by them. In fact as per Rule 1 (1) of order 16 CPC parties to the suit have to file lists of witnesses of the persons whom they propose to examine as witnesses or to produce documents required by them to prove their respective cases within fifteen days from the date of settlement of issues. Sub-rule (3) of that Rule permits the party seeking summons to persons not mentioned in the list of witnesses, if they show sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the list of witnesses filed by him. So, it is clear that no party to the suit can as of right seek issuance of summons by the court to a person who is not shown in the list of witnesses filed by him. In this case, revision petitioners, as stated earlier, did not file list of witnesses. No reasons whatsoever are mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to why they failed to file a list of witnesses on their behalf mentioning the name of the person, they intend to summon as witness on their behalf. So, the trial court did not commit any error in dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioners.