SHIV SHANKAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, JHUNJHUNU & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 16th August, 2011 whereby the learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu allowed the application of the respondent-non-applicant filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC.

(2.) Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that one divorce petition came to be filed by the petitioner-Shiv Shankar, against Smt. Manisha. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent-non-applicant filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC beseeching the Court to permit her to produce witnesses namely, Kailash Pansari, Santosh Kumar Hakim, Ex-Sarpanch- Smt. Chanda Devi, Banwari Lal Agarwal and Vinod Kumar to substantiate her case. The learned trial Court, having heard both the parties, allowed the application and permitted her to produce these witnesses or get them summoned through the Court. The petitioner has assailed this order by way of the instant writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the respondent-non-applicant ought to have filed the list of witnesses within fifteen days, after the issues were settled by the Court whereas, the application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC is found to have been filed after three years. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 16 of CPC, hence, the same deserves to be set aside.