The relevance and necessity of witnesses under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be considered by the court when deciding on applications to summon witnesses.

ORDER

1. The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred assailing the validity of the order dated 05.10.2017, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.1, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court"), whereby petitioner's application dated 15.11.2016 for summoning certain persons in the witness box has been rejected.

2. Precisely narrated, the facts germane for the present purposes are that the respondent No.1 instituted a suit for declaring the relinquishment deed dated 28.01.2011 as null and void.

3. During the proceedings of the suit, the defendant moved an application dated 15.11.2016, inter-alia, stating that the stamp vendor Tulchhiram Sindhi from whom the stamps were purchased and the registering authority - Sub-Registrar, Chunavadh, who had registered the contentious document are necessary witnesses.

4. It was asserted in the application that when requested, those two persons have refused to come to the Court for leading evidence and thus, they be summoned by the Court.

5. A reply to the application aforesaid was filed by the respondent-plaintiff and the request so made by the present petitioner was opposed.

6. After hearing the rival parties, learned Court below rejected petitioner's application dated 15.11.2016, inter-alia, observing that the factum of stamp(s) having been purchased and the registration of relinquishment deed on 28.01.2011 before the SubRegistrar, Chunvadh is not in dispute and that the applicant has not stated the relevancy and necessity of such witnesses.

7. Oppugning the above referred order dated 05.10.2017, Mr. S.K. Shreemali, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting petitioner's application for summoning stamp vendor and the registering authority.

8. He pointed out that the stand of the petitioner(defendant) was that the plaintiff herself had purchased the stamps and appeared before the registering authority, who in discharge of his official duties, had apprised the plaintiff about the relinquishment deed being executed by her and, therefore, their presence in the witness box is imperative in order to substantiate petitioner's stand.

9. Mr. Dixit Panwar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand submitted that petitioner's subject application is nothing but an attempt to protract the proceedings. He submitted that in any case the petitioner himself could have brought them in the Court for leading evidence in his favour.

10. It is to be noted that the petitioner-applicant had not mentioned relevant provisions under which he had moved an application seeking summoning of the witnesses but, then, it cannot be a reason to non-suit an applicant.

11. The provisions contained under Order XVI Rule (1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in unequvivocal terms provide that the Court suo moto or on an application, can issue summons to a witness to appear in the Court.

12. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Order XVI of the Code enjoins upon the party desirous of getting a summon issued to a witness to state in its application the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned.

13. A perusal of subject application dated 15.11.2016 shows that the petitioner had stated that the plaintiff herself had purchased the stamp from the stamp vendor - 'Tulchhiram Sindhi' and thereafter she herself had appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Chunavadh for executing and getting the relinquishment deed registered.

14. Though the application is not well worded but in view of petitioner's stand in his written statement and considering the submissions of learned counsel, this Court is of the view that presence of the stamp vendor and Sub-Registrar is necessary in order to ascertain the veracity of petitioner's stand.

15. The trial Court has not properly considered the mandate of the provisions contained in Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of the Code and has cursorily rejected petitioner's application indicating