KANHAIYA LAL Vs. NENU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main revision petition was heard today with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE defendant petitioner filed a list of witnesses under Order 16 Rule 1 C. P. C. on August 13, 1981 in the trial court. THE trial court rejected the list of witnesses on four grounds-mentioned in that order. THE list did not contain the father's name of some of the witnesses; in the case of some other witnesses the address was not complete; in the case of some other witnesses the expenses for summoning these witnesses were not deposited, although these witnesses were residents of places out-side the town of Shardar-shahar, where the trial court is situated. Moreover in the case of all the witnesses, whose names were included in the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner, the purpose for which the witnesses are pre posed to be examined was not mentioned in the list of witnesses.

(3.) IN the present case, even the witnesses of the plaintiff have not yet been examined, after the plaintiff's evidence would be over, then only the stage would be reached, when the defendant would be called upon to examine his evidence and at that stage the defendant petitioner would be required to file an application showing the purpose for which each witness is proposed to be examined by him and also to deposit the amount required for defraying the expenses of the witnesses sought to be summoned. IN this view of the matter, the trial court was not justified in rejecting the list of witnesses filed by the defendant on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 (2) and Order 16 Rule 2 C. P. C. for, as indicated above, that stage has not been reached as yet. Of course, the defendant would have to furnish the complete particulars of the witnesses sought to be examined, including their father's name and full and complete present addresses. The defendant may remove the defects within 4 weeks.