LAWS(RAJ)-1968-11-25

BHONREYLAL Vs. KUNJ BEHARILAL

Decided On November 29, 1968
BHONREYLAL Appellant
V/S
KUNJ BEHARILAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point for determination in this revision application by the defendants is whether the period of thirty days prescribed for presenting a list of witnesses under Order 16, Rule 1 as amended by the Rajasthan High Court can be extended by virtue of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, (Act 36 of 1963 ).

(2.) THE point is of some importance because the subordinate Courts generally are taking the view that they have no jurisdiction to extend the period prescribed by rule 1 of Order 16 which requires the party to present in Court a list of witnesses whom it proposes to produce on such date as the Court may appoint and not later than 30 days after the settlement of issues. Sub-rule (ii) says that:

(3.) SO far as the first question is concerned there was conflict of judicial opinion and some High Courts took the view that the Civil Procedure Code and the criminal Procedure Code are not a special law even where they deal with the question of limitation. But that controversy has now been set at rest by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Kanwar, AIR 1962 SC 247 and Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh,, AIR 1964 SC 260. In the first case it was held that "rule 4 in Chap. 1, of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. V, framed by the High Court in exercise of the legislative power conferred upon the said High Court under Clause 27 of the Letters Patent, is a law made in respect of special cases covered by it and is a special law within the meaning of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act. " in the second case the question which fell for determination was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied to applications for leave to appeal against acquittal by private complainant and in that connection it was observed by their Lordships that: