SADOTRA JOINERY WORKS, UDHAMPUR Vs. PARKASH & CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question involved in the case is whether a party can be directed to take dasti summons for the service of the witnesses, whose expenses and process fee stands deposited, but summons were not issued.

(2.) THE contention of Mr.Sharma appealing for the petitioners is that expenses and process fee for summoning four witnesses were deposited in the court on 16.03.1998. However, summons could not be issued, as the application had been misplaced by the dealing assistant. As the witness expenses and process fee stood already deposited, he gave the particulars of those witnesses, who were to be summoned as per the original list. But instead of issuing summons to procure their attendance, the District Judge, Jammu by order dated: 10.09.98 directed the petitioners to take dasti summons. The order according to Mr. K.L. Sharma, is bad because unless some difficulty was experienced by the court in effecting service, such a course could not be adopted.

(3.) MRS . Radha Sharma appearing for the non -petitioner, however argued that the delay in summoning the witnesses was entirely due to the plaintiff and it was only to avoid further delay that the order impugned came to be passed. Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for summoning of witnesses. In Manga Ram vs. Brij Mohan and ors. AIR 1983 SC 925, the Supreme Court considered its scope and held as follows: -