The party must provide sufficient cause for the omission to mention a witness in the list furnished under Order-16 Rule-1(1) and cannot call a witness merely for askance.

1. The order dated, 29.2.92 passed by the learned Additional Munsiff No. 1, Bharatpur, is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The facts of the case have been set out by me in detail while disposing of the revision petition No. 809/92 (defect) (Ramji Lal v. Bhoop Singh) and, therefore, it is not necessary to give detailed facts of this case. Suffice it to say that in a suit filed by the plaintiff-nonpetitioner on 16.7.83 for rent and ejectment against the defendant-petitioner, issues were framed on 13.11.84. Evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 10.4.89. Defendant -petitioner examined himself on 4.12.89. One application filed under Order-13 Rule 2 C.P.C. On 16.1.85 was allowed by the trial court on 30.10.85. Second application filed by him under Order 13 Rule-2 on 19.2.90 was dismissed by the learned trial court by a detailed order dated, 23.7.90. On 24.9.90, the defendant-petitioner filed two applications one under Order 16 Rule 3 read with section 151 C.P.C. and the other under Order 13 Rule 2 read with order-8 Rule-1 (6) and Section 151 C.P.C.

3. Learned Additional Munsiff has rejected both the applications by the impugned order dated, 29.2.92. Shri Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that learned Additional Munsiff has committed material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. On the other hand,Shri J.P. Goyal has argued that the order passed by the learned Munsiff after due application of mind does not call for any interference by this Court.

4. A perusal of the application dated, 24.9.90 under Order 16 Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. shows that according to the defendant petitioner the plaintiff has produced Ex. 2/1 in his evidence. He has then stated that in File No. 417 of the Municipal Council, Bharatpur, in which sanction was issued, some additions have been made in the order of sanction. He has than stated that the plaintiff had submitted a plan on 27.2.62 for sanction. In the south of the plan, house of Ramji Lal has been shown. That plan shows the admission of the plaintiff and is an important piece of evidence. The Municipal Council Bharatpur, has refused to give certified copy of the plan and therefore defendant wants to summon the concerned employee of the Municipal Council, Bharatpur with two files. His name could not be included in the list of witnesses because of mistake.

5. In his order dated, 29.2.92, learned Additional Munsiff has given detailed reasons for not accepting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 13 Rule 2 read with Order 8 Rule 1 (6).Regarding the application filed under Order 16 learned Munsiff has observed that when the application filed by the defendant under Order-13 Rule-2 has itself been dismissed, there is no justification for acceptance of the application under Order-16 Rule-1 (3) C.P.C.

6. Order-16 Rule-1(3) has to be read in the context of sub-rule (1) itself. Sub-rule (1) of Rule-1 show that the parties shall present in the court a list of witnesses. to whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court.

7. Sub-rule (3) empowers the Court to permit a party to call any other witness than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. Thus, before any order can be made by the Court it must be satisfied that the party had omitted to mention the name of a witness for some sufficient cause. The witness not mentioned in the list required to be furnished under Order 16 Rule-1(1) cannot be called merely for askance. The party making an application under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16, must give reasons for not mentioning the name of the witness in the list furnished by it in the Court. No reason has been assigned by the petitioner for his failure to name the witness in the list furnished by him under Or