Back
Infant Jesus Church – Appellant
Versus
Southern Law Chambers – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Plaintiffs in a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages are the petitioners herein. Petitioners are challenging Ext.P12 order by which summons were issued to the Witnesses Nos.1 & 2 in Ext.P10 List of Witnesses dated 30.06.2024 submitted by the defendants in the suit. The Witness No. 1 is the Financial Administrator of Arch Diocese of Verapoly and Witness No. 2 is the Secretary, Corporation of Kochi.
2. When this Original Petition was admitted, interim stay was granted with respect to the summoning of Witness No.1. Both sides concede that the documents were produced by the Witness No.2 and hence the purpose of summoning the Witness No.2 is over. Hence the question to be considered in this Original Petition is whether Ext.P12 order issuing summons to Witness No.1 is sustainable or not.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K.L Joseph and the learned counsel for the respondents, Sri. Yash Thomas Mannully.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Ext.P12 order is passed in violation of Order 16, Rule 1(2) of CPC which mandates that a party who is desirous of obtaining a summons against the witness shall state the purpose for summoning the
The court must ensure that the purpose for summoning a witness is explicitly stated to avoid unnecessary delays and inconvenience in legal proceedings.
A party cannot summon a witness for cross-examination without prior examination-in-chief; persistent frivolous applications to delay proceedings are deemed an abuse of process.
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....
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....
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.
Power of a court under Section 254(2) to issue summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing is confined in matter of calling and summoning witnesses and do....
The court established that the trial court is obligated to follow the procedural requirements of the CPC regarding witness summons and the issuance of proclamations when a witness fails to appear.
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
