Judgment :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the wife and is directed against an order being No. 204 dated January 10, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court at Alipore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 103 of 2017.

2. By the order impugned, the prayer of the petitioner for fixing date for examination of remaining witnesses was not allowed; the evidence of the wife/ petitioner herein was closed and dates were fixed for argument.

3. Opposite party laid the suit for dissolution of marriage. Petitioner entered appearance in the suit after service of summons and filed the written statement along with counter claim praying for a decree of restitution for conjugal rights. After completion of the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses (for short “PW”), the petitioner and her son deposed as Dependent Witness (for short “DW”) 1 and DW2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a list of witness on 06.12.2024 containing seven names. Only two out of seven persons named in the said list of witness were allowed to depose as DW3 and DW4. Prayer of the petitioner for fixing date for evidence was not allowed by the impugned order.

4. Being aggrieved, wife approached this Court.

5. Mr. Bachawat, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the civil revision application contended that the remaining 5 witnesses who have been named in the list of witnesses but have not been allowed to depose on behalf of the wife are important witnesses and their evidence would be relevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the suit and the counter claim. He submitted that a party cannot be shut out from giving evidence and that is exactly what has been done by the learned trial judge. He attacked the findings arrived at by the learned trial judge by contending that it is for a party to a proceeding to prove his case by adducing evidence through witnesses or documents and it is not for the Court to decide as to who are the most relevant witnesses.

6. He further contended that the petitioner did not seek the assistance of the Court for procuring the attendance of such witnesses and a party to a proceeding has a right to bring any witness to give evidence or to produce documents in view of Rule 1A of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submitted that Order XVI Rule 1 and Order XVI Rule 1A operates in different fields. According to Mr. Bachawat, Order XVI Rule 1 comes into operation only when a party seeks the assistance of the Court for procuring the attendance of witnesses. In support of such contention, he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mange Ram vs. Brij Mohan and others reported at (1983) 4 SCC 36. He contended that the order impugned is a non-speaking one as there is no finding as to why the remaining witnesses are not relevant. By drawing the attention of the Court to orders passed by a co-ordinate bench in an earlier civil revision application, Mr. Bachawat contended that it is the opposite party and not the petitioner who is responsible for delaying the proceeding.

7. Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate for the Opposite Party seriously disputed the contentions of Mr. Bachawat. He contended that a time limit has been prescribed under Order XVI Rule 1 for filing the list of witnesses. By placing some of the orders passed in the Matrimonial Suit, he contended that repeated opportunities were given to the petitioner to file the list of witnesses but the petitioner chose not to comply with such directions. However, after a long delay, the list of witness was filed only on 06.12.2024. He submitted that Rule 1A of Order XVI does not give right to a party to the suit to bring witness at any point of time. He contended that even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that Rule 1A empowers a party to the suit to give evidence, the said provision cannot come to the aid of the petitioner as she did not produce th