Jayant Nath, J.

By the present petition filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code the petitioner seeks to impugn the judgment of the trial court dated 25.2.2016 by which an application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC filed by the respondent for summoning of witnesses was allowed.

2. Some relevant facts are that the respondent claims to be an 'Agent' of foreign firms/companies providing various services as an intermediary to help in easy and convenient mode of communication and also to do all such acts necessary for the tendering process for various Indian public sector companies. The respondent was banned by the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2006. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the said ban. On 3.2.2012 in the said writ petition being W.P.6943/2011, without filing a counter affidavit a submission was made by the petitioner that the ban order would stand withdrawn for the respondent. The writ petition was disposed of in view of the said submission of the petitioner.

3. Subsequently, the respondent filed the present suit seeking a decree declaring the information/communication ban dated 14.11.2006 as illegal and malafide. Other connected reliefs were also sought including Rs. 30 lacs for damages and Rs. 10 lacs being loss of business and commission etc. Issues were framed and the respondent filed a list of witnesses. Thereafter the respondent filed an application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC for summoning of the witnesses. The witnesses which were sought to be summoned by the respondent are as follows:-

"1. Mr. C.R. Mohanty, Executive Director,-Chief (MM), ONGC Ltd., 9th floor, Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar-Delhi-110092

2. Mr. Sunil Johare, Chief Manager [MM] ONGC Ltd., Tripura Asset, Badarghat Base Complex, Agartala-799014, Tripura

3. Mr. M.D. Joshi [Ex. Director-[retired] ONGC Mobile no.098207-77615, (the current address is with the defendant)

4. Mr. Ashwini Nagia, [GGM-In-charge-MM] drilling services, ONGC, II high building, Sion Bandra Link Road, Sion [West], Mumbai-400017

5. Mr. Ziauddin, DCLA-Corporate legal department, ONGC Ltd., scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.

6. Mr. Pratyush Sinha, Independent External Monitor-C/o Vigilance Department, ONGC Ltd., Jeevan Baharati building, Rajiv Chowk, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

7. Mr. Sandeep Gupta-DGM [MM]- Head-PMC, ONGC ltd., Jeevan Bahrati Building, Rajiv Chowk, Connaught Place-New Delhi-110001."

4. By the impugned order the said application was allowed. The trial court concluded that the purpose for which the witnesses are being summoned has been explained and hence allowed the application.

5. The learned ASG appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the attempt of the respondent is to only harass senior functionaries of the petitioner. He submits that some of the functionaries have also retired. He further submits that witness No.6 is not even an employee of the petitioner and was a senior retired civil servant who was a member of the Independent External Monitor i.e. an independent advisory forum created by the petitioner. He submits that these witnesses are not necessary. He further submits that in violation of the mandatory provisions of Order 16, Rule 1 CPC respondent have failed to give any reason as to why these witnesses are required to be summoned. He relies upon judgments of the Supreme Court in Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan and Others, (1983) 4 SCC 36, Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Ors. v. K.D. Ganapathi & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1353 and judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Yashpal Sawhney v. M/s. Gandotra Traders and others, AIR 1995 J&K 32 to submit that in the absence of any proper and cogent reasons being given by the respondent to summon the said witness the trial court has wrongly allowed the said application by the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection and has submitted that the present petition under section 115 CPC is not maintainable. He relies upon the judgment