LEELA Vs. GOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI B. K. Joshi counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that when the witness has signed on the agreement by which the adversary has contracted to sell the property, have been served with summons, but even then they have not attended the Court. He pointed out that learned trial Judge in view of the situation is asking the petitioner to serve the warrant on those witnesses for signatories to the agreement in question. He further submitted that according to the knowledge of the petitioner they seem to have joined the hands with the adversory and, therefore, it would not be possible for petitioner to serve the bailable warrants on them. He submitted that Court should have taken the action on its own and as it has not been done, this Court be pleased to pass appropriate Order in the interest of justice. After perusing the Order under challenge, it is quite clear that the trial Judge is of the opinion that when the witnesses are not attending the Court in response to the summons served on them, it is the duty of the litigant to keep them present in the Court. And, therefore, learned trial Judge has committed the mistake in pointing out the Rule which he should have in fact put to operation. The tone of the Order shows that he opted for provisions of Order 16 Rule 7 A (3) CPC. Learned Judge committed further error of not noticing that the plaintiff in the present matter happens to be a lady and, therefore, it would be next to impossible for her to serve bailable warrants on those witnesses. Learned Judge should have given proper attention towards the difficulties of social restrictions and physical capacities of a woman-plaintiff. He should not have expected such a woman plaintiff to go for serving bailable warrants on those witnesses who were avoiding to attend the Court for giving evidence in respect of service of summons. The approach taken by the learned Judge is totally erroneous and against the spirit of law. The Courts are meant for administration of justice and to remove the difficulties of the litigants who approach the Court by paying the Court fees for getting a relief which they can get by applying legal provisions. Learned Judge did not notice that he had ample power to compel the presence of those witnesses who were avoiding to come to the Court even after getting summons served on them. Learned Judge should have applied provisions of Order 16 Rule 10 in operation and should have compelled those witnesses to attend the Court for giving the evidence whatsoever they may give, by issuing the proclamation as it has been indicated by provisions of Order 16 Rule 10 CPC. The Courts should not be shy of putting into operation such provisions of law if the witnesses are avoiding to attend the Court, for purpose of giving evidence. When the litigant is a woman or a person suffering from physical or legal disabilities, it is the duty of the Courts to apply appropriate provisions of law for the purpose of securing the administration of justice and maintaining the dignity of the Court.

(2.) IN the present matter the evidence of plaintiff has been closed. The Order which has been passed by the trial Court and which is being assailed by this revision, stands set aside by allowing this revision. In the interest of justice an opportunity be given to the petitioner plaintiff to adduce the evidence provided the plaintiff makes an application for the purpose of compelling the attendance of the witnesses in view of Order 16 Rule 10 CPC. No order. The attitude taken by the trial Court is hereby strongly depreciated. No Order as to costs.