Under Order 16, Rule 1, CPC, it is the right of the party at any stage of the suit to make an application to the court seeking that summons be issued to a witness either to give evidence or to produce documents. The court is not entitled to refuse such an application on the ground that it might cause delay in the trial of the suit on the adjourned date of the suit.

A. V. KRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed to revise the order of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, made in I. A. No. 163 of 1968 in O. S. No. 32 of 1967 on his file. The petitioner filed the said I. A. to issue summons to the Manager, Shankermut, Hyderabad to produce the documents of title deeds. It is also contained another distinct prayer to direct Shankermut to allow the Commissioner and the Engineer to take measurements of their site also. The second prayer in the petition in so far as it seeks a direction to allow the Commissioner and engineer to take measurements of the Shankermut is concerned had been rightly deleted by the petitioner. The application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that it was not necessary for the Court to look into the documents of the Shankermut and that the petition was filed only to delay the trial of the suit. As the Manager of the Shankermut had already replied to the plaintiff that the documents were not available with the local office at the Mut and the documents were kept in the Head Office, Belgam, Mysore State, the learned Judge considered that the crucial point for determination by him was whether it was necessary that the documents of Shankermut should be looked into for the purpose of this trial and to enable the Commissioner to take the measurements of the Shankermut site also with reference to the title deeds of Shankermut. I think the approach made by the Court below to the application filed by the petitioner was wholly erroneous and it resulted in its failure to exercise the jurisdiction which vested in the Court, namely, issuing summonses under Order XVI, Rule 1, Civil P. C. In considering the question the lower Court observed that Shankermut, which was sought to be summoned for producing its documents of title, was not a party to the suit. I do not know why the Court below thought it fit to mention the facts when it is self evident that the Shankermut was not a party and the plaintiff was not seeking any relief against Shankermut as such. It is plain that any person other than a party may always be summoned to produce documents in his possession or to give oral evidence on behalf of a party who makes an application in that behalf to the Court. The Court below in the course of its discussion had observed :--"in my opinion there is no need to look into the documents of the Shankermut in order to determine the demarcating lines. "then again it expressed itself in these terms :"in these circumstances I feel that no useful purpose would be served by measuring the entire sites of Shankermut on the southern side in order to fix up the demarcating line between the sites of plaintiff and the defendant. "the Court below also thought that I. A. No. 163 of 1968 should also be dismissed on a technical ground, having regard to Rule 76 (21) of Civil Rules of Practice which lays down that while summoning for a document, the description of the papers required to be produced by the witness should be given. The learned Judge opined that in the application before hi the description of the document was not given and that the description of the document given was very vague requiring the Manager of Shankermut to produce the documents of title deeds. Perhaps it is vague but that is no reason to dismiss the application, because the Court can always call upon ( and in this case should have called upon ) the plaintiff to give better particulars of the documents required to be produced by Shankermut. In my opinion the rejection of the application on this technical ground by the Court below is unwarranted and this ground for rejection cannot be permitted to stand.

( 2 ) THE Court below has not kept in mind the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P. C. in dismissing the present application. Order 16, Rule 1, Civil P. C. provides for summons to be issued to witness who attend to give evidence or produce documents. It reads :"at any time after the suit is instal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document