VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. SHANTA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's revision against the trial Court's order dated 14-8-1980 passed under Order 16, C. P. C. with conditions stipulated in the matter of due service of summons on the plaintiff's witnesses.

(2.) 14-8-1980 was the date fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses. The plaintiff was absent and so also his witnesses. The processes issued for the summoning of the witnesses had not returned to the Court, served or otherwise. The trial Court observed that similar situation existed on earlier hearings as well, and one of the witnesses of the plaintiff had actually refused to accept the summons. In these circumstances, the trial Court passed the impugned order, whereby it was directed that the plaintiff was being given one more chance to summon his witnesses on the condition that he should take special interest in getting his witnesses served, and, in case, the processes arc found to be returned unserved or without proper service, the plaintiff would be responsible to produce his witnesses in Court at his own risk and responsibility. It is against this order that the plaintiff has now come up in revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant-plaintiff has urged before me that no duty, obligation or any responsibility could be cast on the plaintiff to keep his witnesses present on the date of evidence and that he could not be directed to take special interest in the matter of service of summons on them. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff's duty and responsibility ended, once he paid the process-fee for service of summons on his witnesses in due lime and furnished proper and correct addresses. The learned counsel for the non- applicant-defendant has urged that the plaintiff was negligent in getting his witnesses produced for recording their evidence and that he was not giving the correct addresses of his witnesses to facilitate due service of summons on them.