The court emphasized the necessity for relevance in summoning witnesses and documents in civil proceedings, allowing only pertinent evidence for adjudication.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

In W.P.No.14517/2024:

The petitioner-defendant No.9 is at the doors of this court calling in question the orders passed on two interlocutory applications in I.A.No.13 and I.A.No.14 in Commercial O.S.No. 1443/2014. The applications are preferred under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of production of documents and summoning of witnesses.

2. Heard Sri.Ramesh P Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Harish H.V., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 and K.V.Lokesh, learned counsel for respondent No.11.

3. The transaction is between the petitioner - 9^th defendant and the respondent - the plaintiff. The suit between the two is instituted for relief of specific performance of an Agreement to Sell that is executed between the 9th defendant and the plaintiff. The issue in the lis concerns the applications filed by the petitioner-9^th defendant. During the proceedings, the present petitioner files two applications I.A.No.13 and I.A.No.14 under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC seeking summoning of documents and witnesses in support of his claim as projected in the Written Statement. The concerned court allows application I.A.No.13 in part by summoning of the officers of the Income Tax Department to depose the documents. The other application i.e., I.A.No.14 which was for summoning of witnesses has been turned down on the score that the witnesses sought to be summoned have nothing to do with the transaction between the plaintiff and the 9th defendant qua the subject property, the suit for which is preferred by the respondent herein, the plaintiff for specific performance. It is the rejection of these two orders that has driven the 9th defendant to this court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend taking this court to the list of witnesses seeking to demonstrate that the plaintiff and others have formed a coterie of financers and used to transact with the defendant and therefore, the two witnesses that are found in the list of witnesses i.e., 6 and 12 are imperative to be summoned for the purpose of proving that defendant had repaid substantial amount to those persons towards the consideration in the Agreement to Sell. The learned counsel submit that the concerned court ought to have allowed the applications seeking summoning of those witnesses as they were necessary to prove the case of the defendant.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff before the concerned court would on the strength of those documents itself contend that they are the witnesses that are wanting to be summoned have nothing to do with the transaction between the plaintiffs and the 9th defendant. They are neither signatories to the documents that are placed before the court for a relief of specific performance qua the parties. He would submit that the order passed by the concerned court is in tune with law and the petition be dismissed.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The narrated facts are a matter of record. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have preferred a suit in Commercial O.S.No.1443/2014 seeking specific performance against the 9th defendant qua a document i.e., Agreement of Sale. Before the concerned court, the 9th defendant files two applications as observed hereinabove for summoning of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for the purpose of deposing qua the documen