Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
Sampurna Builders – Appellant
Versus
A.Kiran Kumar, S/O A.Phaniraj – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges interlocutory orders related to witness summoning. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court considers relevance of documents and witness status. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. clarification on powers of summoning under cpc and evidence act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court modifies order to summon relevant documents. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final decision on the petition with modifications. (Para 18 , 19) |
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 - 9th defendant and the respondent - the plaintiff. The suit between the two is instituted for relief of specific performance of an Agreement to S
The court emphasized the necessity for relevance in summoning witnesses and documents in civil proceedings, allowing only pertinent evidence for adjudication.
A party to a suit cannot compel the opponent to testify on their behalf as a matter of right; the trial court has discretion to allow such summons based on the necessity and context of the case.
Summoning a defendant as the plaintiff's witness is discouraged and should occur only in exceptional circumstances; the plaintiff must bear the burden of proof.
Point of law: In any case, it is settled legal position that no litigant can be denied the opportunity to prove his case, unless it is clear that presence of such witnesses is not necessary at all. T....
The court upheld the trial court's rejection of applications for document production and witness recall due to lack of demonstrated relevance and procedural compliance.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting facts, and it cannot rely on the documents of the opposing party to fill gaps in its case.
Point of Law : Negligence and failure to produce such evidence because of inadvertence/negligence, is not a lawful ground to permit a party to lead the additional evidence within the ambit and scope ....
The right to make an application for witness summons is available to a party at any stage of the suit, but the trial court may refuse to issue summons only if the application is not bona fide, vexati....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
