RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Alok Sharma, J.
Abdul Subhan - Petitioner
Versus
Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Kishangarh Bas, Alwar and Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19693 of 2013
Decided On : 06-12-2013
ORDER 16 RULE 1 CPC - LIST OF WITNESSES - DELAY IN FILING - CONDONATION - DISCRETION OF COURT - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 CPC are directory in nature and delay in filing list of witnesses can be condoned by court in absence of prejudice to other party.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Issues were framed on 6.10.2010. Plaintiff filed list of witnesses on 28.10.2010, beyond 15 days as prescribed under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC. Defendant filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC seeking removal of plaintiff's list of witnesses from court file. Plaintiff filed reply stating he was ill and admitted at Primary Health Center Tapookada during the relevant period. Trial court allowed defendant's application and directed removal of plaintiff's list of witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
Delay in filing list of witnesses was only about ten days beyond prescribed period. No prejudice was caused to defendant by the delay. Plaintiff's list of witnesses was already on record and acted upon. Summons were issued to plaintiff's witnesses and cross examination of one witness commenced. Plaintiff's reply to defendant's application contained careless averments about his admission at PHC Tapookada, but certificates filed with reply indicated only his illness. Misstatement in reply was not deliberate and malafide.
Issues: Whether delay in filing list of witnesses under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC can be condoned by court in absence of prejudice to other party.
Ratio Decidendi: Provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 CPC are directory in nature and not mandatory. Delay in filing list of witnesses can be condoned by court in absence of prejudice to other party. Court has discretion to condone delay in filing list of witnesses even if it is beyond prescribed period of 15 days. In instant case, delay was only about ten days and no prejudice was caused to defendant. Plaintiff's list of witnesses was already on record and acted upon. Summons were issued to plaintiff's witnesses and cross examination of one witness commenced. Plaintiff's reply to defendant's application contained careless averments about his admission at PHC Tapookada, but certificates filed with reply indicated only his illness. Misstatement in reply was not deliberate and malafide. Therefore, trial court erred in allowing defendant's application and removing plaintiff's list of witnesses from court file.
Final Decision: Writ petition allowed. Impugned order quashed and set aside. Trial court directed to decide suit within twelve months from receipt of certified copy of order. Adjournments to be entertained only on written application and allowed for good reason found by trial court.
Alok Sharma, J.
This petition has been filed against the order dated 18.7.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kishangarh Bas, Alwar allowing an application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC filed by the respondent-defendant (hereinafter the defendant') and directing the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff) to be removed from the case file of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction pending before it and instead kept in the 'D' file.
2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff laid a suit against the defendant for declaration and permanent. Details of the suit are not relevant in the context of issue in the present petition. On service of notice of the plaint on the defendant, written statement of denial came to be filed thereto Consequently on 6.10.2010 issues were framed. In terms of Order 16, Rule 1 CPC not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled the parties "shall" present in court a list of witnesses they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summons to such persons for their attendance in court. It appears that in spite of settlement of issues on 6.10.2010 the plaintiff filed the list of witnesses before the trial court only on 28.10.2010. Based on the list of witnesses filed by the plaintiff summons were issued to witnesses for their evidence on 2.4.2011 Summons were served and on 2.4.2011, RW. 4 Ram Sharma s/o Prabhu Dayal filed affidavit, copy of which was supplied to counsel for the defendant. During the cross examination of Ram Sharma, the counsel for the defendant sought time to file an application, therefore the cross examination of Ram Sharma was deferred. Thereupon the defendant filed an application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC praying therein that list of plaintiffs witnesses be removed from the record of the trial court in view of it having been filed beyond 15 days following the settlement of issues on 6.10.2010. The plaintiff filed reply to the application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC, along with medical certificates stating therein that effective 6.10.2010 he was purportedly admitted at the Primary Health Center Tapookada, Alwar district and was advised rest, consequent to which upto 27.10.2010 he could not travel to the court to contact his Advocate and file the requisite list of witnesses.
3. The matter was thereupon considered by the trial court and by its vide impugned order dated 18.7.2013 the defendant's application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC filed by defendant was allowed and removal of list of plaintiffs witnesses from the court file directed and in stead its inclusion in paid 'D' of the record required. The reason which prevail with the trial court in passing the impugned order dated 18.7.2013 fundamentally was that even though the plaintiff had stated in his reply to application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC that he had been admitted at Primary Health Center Tapookada, Alwar, in proof : thereof neither the admit card nor the discharge card had been filed. Holding that the reason for delay in filing the list of witness was not sufficiently explained the trial court directed as detailed hereinabove. Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Mr. Rahul Kamwar, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has stated that J the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1 CPC are merely directory in nature and a mere ten days delay in filing the list of witnesses was not all prejudicial to the defendant nor indicative of reckless, lack of vigilance by the plaintiff. He has submitted that the fact that power vests in the court under Order 16, Rule 1 (3) CPC to call any witnesses other than those whose name appeared in the 3 list of witnesses, clearly indicates that there is no iron-clad mandatory time frame for submitting the list of witnesses, albeit the list of witnesses should ordinarily be submitted within fifteen days otherwise thereafter within a reasonable time f
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.