GOPIKISHAN MUNNALAL Vs. KRISHNADAS LAXMINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision submitted by the petitioner Gopikishan Munnalal who was a witness in Civil Suit No. 505 of 1954 of the Civil Judge's Court at Mhow. The petition is directed against the order passed by the trial Court for recovery of the amount of his personal bond given by him for his appearance on 24-9-1957.

(2.) Facts material for the consideration of the legality and propriety of the order are as follows: Petitioner is a Railway servant and was cited as a witness by the defendant Ramnarayan and summons was issued on his home address in Rajagali Mhow for appearance on 20-8-1957. The summons was served but the witness failed to attend. No diet charges however were tendered to the witness as required under Order 16 Rule 3 C. P. C. The Court, therefore, in ignorance of the fact that he was a Railway Servant directed issue of Muchalka-warrant for appearance on 24-9-1957. The petitioner gave a personal bond in pursuance of the warrant and actually appeared on 24-9-1957. He waited upto 1 P. M. but the Court was otherwise busy. He therefore submitted an application to the Court bringing to its notice that he was a Railway servant and that he had to attend his duty and requesting the Court that he might therefore be summoned through his department. The Court rejected that application and directed forfeiture of his bond and further directed issue of fresh bailable warrant of Rs. 100/- for appearance on 5-11-1957. Notice was also directed to be issued why the amount of the bond be not recovered from him, The witness appeared on 5th and was examined. Before that on 31-10-1957 he submitted an application setting out two grounds why the amount of the bond ought not to be recovered from him viz. that he was a Railway servant and that summons ought to have been sent through his office and that no diet charges had been tendered to him for appearance on 20-8-1957. The Court rejected this application on the ground that he ought to have applied to the Court.

(3.) On these facts the question for consideration is whether the lower Court was right in ordering forfeiture of the bond and directing recovery of the amount of the same as penalty from the petitioning witness.