SHAM LAL Vs. DALBIR KUMAR SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of an order dated August 2, 1975, of the Sub Judge, Jammu, by which the petitioner has been directed to have the service effected on his witnesses by taking Dasti summons.

(2.) ALTHOUGH there is a conflict of judicial opinion on the point as to v/h ether a suitor san be asked to take Dasti summons or to make identification of his witnesses, some courts holding that the court has no such power and others holding that there is no inhibition in the Code of Civil Procedure to give direction of that nature, yet all the courts seem to be agreed that if a suitor has been negligent or if the prayer made by him for issue of summonses to his witnesses has not been made bonafide or has been made to harass the other party or issue of summons to any witness would result in an abuse of the process of the Court, the court is justified in refusing the prayer.

(3.) IN the instant case, a perusal of the minutes of proceedings of the trial court shows that on April 26, 1975, the petitioner herein was directed to adduce his evidence on May 29, 1975. On the case coming up for hearing on May 29, 1975 no witness of the petitioner was present and the Court found that he had not made an application for summoning any witness. It, however, granted an adjournment to the defendant on payment of Rs. 10/ - as costs and ordered the case to come up on August 2, 1975, i.e. after a period of more than two months. Nine or ten days before the next date of hearing i.e. August 2, 1975, the petitioner filed a long list of 36 witnesses and also mentioned therein that he would be filing a supplementary list of his witnesses later on. The list of the witnesses was also incomplete as particulars required to enable service being effected on the witnesses was not given therein. It is, therefore, manifest that the petitioner has been negligent, that the prayer made by him is vexatious and that any indulgence to him would defeat the ends of justice and would result in the abuse of process of the court. For the fore -going reasons, I find myself unable to interfere with the order passed by the trial court which is directed to issue summonses and hand them over to the petitioner making him responsible for effecting service on his witnesses. In case the petitioner requires the aid of the process server for having service on his witnesses effected, the same would be made available to him and the process server would be directed to accompany him. In making this order I find myself fortified by a decision of the Patna High Court reported as A.I.R. 1958 Patna, 458. The revision is disposed of accordingly.