( 1 ) HEARD Sri Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri Hari Prasad, counsel representing the respondent.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner filed the C. R. P. questioning the order made in i. A. No. 2815 of 2002 in O. S. No. 347 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The defendant in the said suit moved the aforesaid application under Order XVI Rule1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning the witnesses, whose description had been furnished, to establish the execution of the document and also the aspect of possession. The said application was resisted and ultimately, the application was dismissed mainly on the ground that this Court while disposing of C. R. P. No. 5779 of 2002 observed that if the petitioner filed list of witnesses only he will be entitled to examine further witnesses on his behalf, otherwise, he is not entitled to examine further witnesses in case I. A. No. 2526 of 2002 being allowed. This observation was made while making an order in relation to the recall of D. W. 1 for cross-examination. It appears much water had flown subsequent thereto. Be that as it may, the original pleading was amended praying for the relief of declaration of title also and apart from this aspect of the matter in the affidavit filed support of the application, it was stated by the revision petitioner that he intends to examine three more witnesses; 1) P. Sambasiva Rao, advocate-Notary, the person who attested the agreement of sale dated 12. 12. 1983 executed by the plaintiff in his favour, 2) S. Pratap Reddy, attesting witness on agreement of sale, 3) Srinivas, adjacent house owner. It was also specified that to prove the said agreement of sale and also to prove the aspect of possession relating to the plaint schedule property, these witnesses may be essential and hence, the said persons to be summoned to give evidence. The said application was resisted and the same was dismissed and aggrieved by the same the present C. R. P. is preferred.

( 3 ) IN KAILASA BHOOMIAH vs KAILASA ESHWARALINGAM AND OTHERS, it was held that the filing of list of witnesses within 15 days is not mandatory and the court in appropriate cases can condone the delay and receive the list even after 15 days. In N. BALARAJU vs G. VIDYADHAR while dealing with the aspect of summoning of witnesses in the absence of filing of list of witnesses it was held that it is permissible if the Court is satisfied with the reasons given by the party seeking such relief under Order XVI Rule 1 (3) of the CPC. The reasons, which had been specified in the affidavit filed in support of the application, already had been referred to supra. It may also be pertinent to observe that other two C. R. Ps. , preferred by the self same revision petitioner questioning the orders in relation to the amendment of the pleadings also had been disposed of today in C. R. P. Nos. 2042 and 2372 of 2004.

( 4 ) RELIANCE also was placed on MANGE RAM vs. BRIJ MOHAN And Others, m. MUNASWAMI NAIDU AND ANOTHER vs SMT. K. NAGAMANI, B. VENKAT RAM REDDY vs k. SRINIVAS AND OTHERS, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS vs M/s. SUSRU SEA FOODS, RAVI BAI AND OTHERS vs. THAKUR GANESH SING AND others, V. NIRMALA vs V. SUBBA RAJU, KOSURU KALINGA MAHARAJU vs KOSURU kaikamma AND OTHERS, MOHD. JALEEL vs PALAVARAPU RAMA MURTHY, and SAIN DAS vs NARAIN SING.

( 5 ) IN SRI AUROBINDO AHSRAM TRUST AND ANOTHER vs KAMAL DORA it was held that a party who seeks for a prayer to the Court to issue summons to the witnesses must reveal to the Court the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned and once such an application is filed, it is for the Court to use its discretion and to decide whether summons are to be issued to these witnesses and it is to be noted that the issue of summons is not automatic and in appropriate cases or in cases where objections are raised, the bona fides of the request may have to be looked into and appropriat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document