The Court has an inherent power to control the issue of summons and the examination of witnesses to prevent abuse of process, but it should normally issue summons and examine witnesses produced before it.

JUDGMENT : This Civil Revision Petition raises an important question of law as to the scope ofOrder 18 Rule 4, C. P. C. In order to appreciate the contention of Sri M. Krishna Rao, the learned advocate for the petitioner, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts.

2. The petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 92 of 1955 for sending the receipt dated 10-2-1954 to a Hand-Writing Expert. The learned District Munsif dismissed the application on the ground that an Expert had already given an opinion that the signature in the document was that of the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon filed an application under Section 151 C. P. C., to allow him to take photographs from the negatives of the disputed and the admitted documents in court to enable him to send them to a Hand-Writing Expert.

The application was also dismissed by the Learned District Munsif. When the suit was taken up for trial, the plaintiff brought an expert to Court and wanted to examine him. The learned District Munsif refused to grant him permission to examine the Expert by reason of an application filed by the respondent not to examine him. It is as against that order that the plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition to this Court.

3. The main question that arises for consideration in the Civil Revision Petition is whether it is open to the Court to refuse to examine a. witness summoned or brought to the Court by a Party. The only relevant provision is Order 18 Rule 4 C. P. C, which runs in the following terms:

"4. The evidence of the witnesses in attendance shall be taken orally in open Court in the presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of the Judge.

4Section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act merely provides the order in which the witnesses should be produced and examined. It enacts that the order shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively and in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court. The learned advocate for the respondent has not been able to draw my attention to any provision of law which confers power on the Court to shut out the examination of witnesses produced and sought to be examined by any party. Reference was made to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 C P. C, as throwing light on the scope of O. 18, R. 4 C. P. C.

Order 16 R. 1 C. P. C, provides that at any time after the suit is instituted, the parties may obtain, on application to the Court or to such Officer as it appoints in this behalf, summonses to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents. In construing the provisions of the Order 16 R. 1 C. P. C, the Calcutta High Court held in Aswini Kumar v. Anukul Chandra, AIR 1950 Cal 326 (A), that a party is entitled as of right to a summons so long as the application is made after the institution of the suit and before it is decided.

In an earlier Calcutta decision reported in Abdul Bari Dewan v. Hrishikesh Mittra, AIR 1929 Cal 459 (B), it was held that the function of a Civil Court in issuing summons is akin to that of a post office and it has no power to refuse the issue of summons. The Patna High Court has followed the Calcutta decision in Tara Prasanna Gupta v. Jhaman Ram, AIR 1953 pat 8 (C). I am, however, not prepared to take the extreme view propounded in those cases. As pointed out in Veerabadran Chetty v. Nataraja Desikar, ILR 28 Mad 28 (D), there is always an inherent power vested in the Court to control the issue of summons or the examination of the witnesses.. Subramania Ayyar, J, followed the view of Jessel, M. R. in Raymond v. Tapson, (1882) 22 Ch D 430 at p. 434 (E). The passage relied on is as follows : "Of course there was always a power in the Court to prevent an abuse of this power (of summoning witnesses)"

After referring to Rex v. Burbage, (1763) 3 Burr 1440 (P), Subrahmania Ayyar, J., pointed out as follows:

"It is hardly necessary to point out that the control in question

Click Here to Read the rest of this document