STG ASSOCIATES Vs. TILAK COSMETICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 CPC, the petitioners challenge the order dated 10.06.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, No.2, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati in Money Suit No.114/2005, whereby the petition No.2703/2015 was rejected. The petition in question reads as follows:-

(3.) It will be appropriate to take note of provisions of Order XVI Rule 1(1) and Order XVI Rule 1(3) of the CPC. Order XVI Rule 1(1) CPC provides that on or before such date as the Court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court. Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC provides that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list.