SHRI PURNANDAR DEKA Vs. SHRI TARANI KANTA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - This petition is directed against the order dated 2.2.87 passed by the learned Sadar Munsiff, Gauhati rejecting the defendant-petitioner's objection under Rule 1 of Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff-opposite party had filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant-petitioner. The issues were framed on 8.8.86 and additional issues were framed on 5.12.86. An objection was raised by the petitioner that since the plaintiff had not filed the list of witnesses, under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code within 15 days of the framing of the issues on 8.8.86, the plaintiff could not be allowed to produce his witnesses. The court below by the impugned order rejected the submission and hence this revision.

(3.) Shri N. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the list of witnesses for the plaintiff required to be submitted under Rule 1 Order 16 within 15 days of the framing of issues not having been submitted, the plaintiff could not be allowed to produce witnesses, that in any case an application under Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was required to be submitted for consideration of the Court and that without such an application the court below could not have enlarged the time for the said purpose, and that framing of the additional issue on 5.12.86 would not mean that the application under Rule 1 of Order 16 should not have been filed earlier in time, and also that the list submitted by the plaintiff was only for summoning the witnesses and was not the list required under the said Rule 1 of Order 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore submitted that the court below has passed the impugned order illegally and this petition should be allowed. On the other hand Shri C.C. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has refuted the submission and has argued that on 8.8.86 when the issues were framed, time was allowed to take steps up to 28.8.86. On 28.8.86 the plaintiff had filed an application for time to take steps and time to take steps up to 12.9 86 was allowed. On 12.9.86 the plaintiff had filed the list of his witnesses and accordingly there was no violation of the provision of said Rule 1, and in any case the court below had allowed the prayer and no illegality was committed. On 5.12.86 additional issues were framed and a fresh list was submitted the same day. Shri Deka accordingly has contended that there is no merit in this petition which should be rejected.