1. Heard.

2. The instant petition is against the order dated 09.03.2018, wherein the right to lead evidence that of the plaintiff was closed. Ground for closure of the evidence was that the plaintiff has refused to summon the witnesses by Dasti summons, as such it was held that the plaintiff appears to be reluctant and not interested in prosecuting his case and closure of evidence was ordered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order like nature cannot be sustained and the plaintiff cannot be compelled to take Dasti summons for the witness. He further submits that the ordinary payment of process to the witnesses were made and the summons report also shows that they were not served and lastly the summons report was awaited. It is stated, as the summons report was awaited, the Court compelled the plaintiff to get the witnesses served through the Dasti summons, having shown the inability to avail Dasti summons, as punishment thereof, the right to lead evidence was closed, which cannot be done.

4. Perused the order of the Court below, which records that the plaintiff was present he was examined and cross-examined, thereafter was discharged. The court recorded that other witnesses who were summoned namely Munir Khan and Ameen Meman, though the summons were issued but the service report was still awaited. The order-sheet reflects since the other witnesses were not present, as such it appears that the application under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC was moved for adjournment. The Court further recorded that the evidence of the plaintiff was initially fixed on 27.06.2016 and on 09.11.2016 the plaintiff's advocate was directed to secure the presence of the witness through summons and the plaintiff has paid four times the process fee to secure the witness and the summons report is still awaited. Order further purports that thereafter under the situation, the Court directed the plaintiff to obtain the Dasti summons to get the witnesses served, but having said so, the plaintiff showed his inability to serve the witness through the summons.

5. Order 16 Rule 7A CPC governs the situation like nature, which reads as under:-

“7A. Summons given to party for service.- (1) The court may, on the application of any party for the issue of a summons for the attendance of any person, permit such party to effect service of such summons on such person and shall, in such a case, deliver the summons to such party for service.

(2) The service of such summons shall be effected by or on behalf of such party by delivering or tendering to the witness personally a copy thereof signed by the Judge or such officer of the court as he may appoint in this behalf and sealed with the seal of the court.

(3) The provisions of Rules 16 and 18 of Order V shall apply to a summons personally served under this rule as if the person effecting service were a serving officer.

(4) If such summons, when tendered, is refused or if the person served refuses to sign an acknowledgment of service or for any reason such summons cannot be served personally, the court shall on the application of the party, re-issue such summons to be served by the court in the same manner as a summons to a defendant.

(5) Where a summons is served by a party under this rule, the party shall not be required to pay the fees otherwise chargeable for the service of summons.”

6. In this case, as appears from the order-sheet that on earlier occasion the Court permitted the witnesses to be summoned through the intervention of the Court by payment of process. Reading of Order 7A CPC as a whole would show that to serve a witness through the summons by way of Dasti i.e. by tendering the witness personally a copy thereof can be made on the application of the party and he cannot be compelled to do so. Meaning thereby, the Court cannot compel a party against his will to obtain summons and to serve the parties/witnesses or his agent on the witnesses. The scheme of legislature therefore is that when a party to a s