MOHAN AGRAWAL Vs. RAHUL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the interlocutory order passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior in case no. 127A/2013 on 24.07.2014, whereby three different applications of the defendant/petitioner herein have been decided. The first being an application under Order 16 Rule 1 and 2 CPC providing list of witnesses seeking issuance of summons, much after the time period prescribed for doing so, has been rejected. The second being an application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC of the petitioner/defendant for summoning of certain documents has been rejected. Lastly, an application under Order 8 Rule 3 CPC of for taking certain documents on record, has been partly allowed, to the extent of allowing documents no. 1 to 6 to be taken on record, but disallowing taking of documents no. 7 to 9 on record.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

(3.) PERUSAL of the impugned order indicates that in respect of application under Order 16 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, where the trial Court declined the request for summoning of witnesses which has not been furnished earlier, the findings which have been recorded are to the effect that the trial was fixed for recording of evidence on 22.02.2013, when the petitioner did not furnished any list of witnesses. Thereafter, after elapse of seven months, when the plaintiff's evidence came to an end on 17.12.2013, the application under Order 16 Rule 1(3) has now been filed on 07.07.2014 on the ground that the petitioner in fact had furnished the details of the witnesses to the earlier counsel, who failed to submit the list, whereafter the petitioner has engaged a new counsel, leading to filing of the application under Order 16 Rule 1(3) CPC. The trial Court in this respect has held that the reason arisen is not satisfactory, as it does not comply with the requirements of the Order 16 Rule 3 CPC by showing sufficient cause for omission to mention the name of witnesses earlier. The trial Court has further held that the defendant has further failed to disclose the purpose for which witnesses are proposed to be summoned.