Point of Law: Order XVI Rule 1(3) envisages a request, by a party, to call a witness other than one whose name figures in list of witnesses filed under Order XVI Rule 1(1).

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. An application by the petitioner, as the defendant in C.S. No. 203/2018 (Ram Mohan Gautam vs. Shally) preferred under Order XVI Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) stands dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (“the learned ADJ” hereinafter) vide the impugned order dated 20th July 2022.

2. Consequent to completion of pleadings and framing of issues, the respondent, as the plaintiff in the suit, chose only to lead his sole evidence as PW-1.

3. No list of defence witnesses was filed by the petitioner, as the defendant in the suit. Nonetheless, the learned ADJ allowed the recording of evidence of the petitioner as DW-1.

4. After recording of evidence of DW-1 was complete, the petitioner moved the application, under Order XVI Rule 1(3) of the CPC, which stands disallowed by the impugned order dated 20th July 2022.

5. By the said application, the petitioner sought to examine 12 witnesses. It was further averred that, if the said witnesses were not examined, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is necessary to reproduce Para-3 of the application, thus:

“That defendant want to examine the following witnesses are necessary to be examined in support of her defence for this case:

(i) Husband of Defendant namely Sh. Pradeep Kumar, to prove the admissibility and relevance of call recordings along with its true typed version to which is annexed at page no 21 to 80 of WS.

(ii) Property dealer namely Sh. Damodar Pant, to prove his statement that he brought Plaintiff to Defendant and her husband for purchasing of her flat and lately Plaintiff created a conspiracy with intention to sold the flat of Defendant to someone else from. where he is getting excessive amount but when other party refused to buy said flat, then Plaintiff stepped out from the conditions of bayana agreement.

(iii) Employee of Defendant husband namely Rajesh Kumar who worked at RP Enterprises, T-2536, IInd Floor, Guru Nanak Market, Naiewala Karol Bagh, Delhi to prove his statement that, Plaintiff along with his wife visited to abovesaid shop for extending the execution period of Bayana Agreement.

(iv) Employee of Defendant husband namely Rajesh Phawa who worked at RP Enterprises, T-2536, IInd Floor, Guru Nanak Market, Naiewala Karol Bagh, Delhi to prove his statement that, Plaintiff along with his wife visited to abovesaid shop for extending the execution period of Bayana Agreement.

(v) Record Clerk/Ahlmad of Court of Ms. Saloni Singh, MM, Shahadra, Karkardooma, Delhi along with complete judicial file of the matter titled as Shruti Bagde vs. Ram Mohan Gautam vide C.T Case No. 1664 of 2018 u/s 138 NI Act, to prove that Plaintiff is a habitual offender and the also cheated Shruti Bagde with the mala-fide intention to sold the flat of Defendant to her.

(vi) Record Clerk/Ahlmad of Court of Ms. Saloni Singh, MM, Shahadra, Karkardoo1na, Delhi along with complete judicial file of the matter titled as Ram Mohan Gautam vs. Shruti Bagde vide C.T. Case No. 1463 of 2018 u/s 200 Cr.P.C. LDOH-30.05.2022, to prove that Plaintiff is a habitual offender and he also cheated Shruti Bagde with the malafide intention to sold the flat of Defendant to her.

(vii) Record Clerk/Ahlmad of Court of Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, ADJ, Shahadra, Karkardooma, Delhi along with complete judicial file of the matter titled as Ram Mohan Gautam vs. Naveen Kumar, vide Civil Suit No. 373 of 2020 LDOH-13.01.2022, to prove that Plaintiff is a habitual offender and he used to enter into false and fabricated Bayana Agreement and did not execute it further with the sole intension to extort money from innocent people.

(viii) Record Clerk/Ahlmad of Court of Ms. Saloni Singh, MM, Shahadra, Karkardooma, Delhi along with complete judicial file of the matter titled as Sangeeta Bagde vs. Ram Mohan Gautam vide C.L. Case No. 1670 of 2018 u/s 419/420 IPC, to prove that Plaintiff is a habitual offender and he also cheated Sangeeta Bagde with the malafide intention to