CHHANGANI, J,—This revision raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of O. 16 R. 1, Civil Procedure Code, as amended by the Rajasthan High Court.

2. The revision came up for hearing on 10th February, 1971. The learned counsel for the parties pointed out that a number of revisions against orders passed by subordinate courts on varying interpretations of O. 16 R. 1 C. P. C. have been pending in this Court and that the subordinate courts have passed contradictory orders almost in similar circumstances and suggested that the hearing of the revision may be adjourned and all advocates interested in assisting the Court for the proper interpretation of O. 16 r. 1 C.P.C. should be given an opportunity to do so. The case was, therefore, adjourned for hearing today, and a number of similar revisions were also listed for hearing.

3. I have heard Mr. A. L. Mehta for the petitioner and Mr. D.S. Sishodia for the respondent. The other counsel appearing in other cases and the advocates who were interested in assisting the Court for the proper interpretation of O. 16 R. 1 were also allowed to place their views before the Court.

4. The learned counsel very much emphasised the need of laying down principles guaranteeing uniform administration of law by the subordinate courts. While there can be a settled view as to the proper interpretation of O.16 R. l there is bound to be great diversity of facts and circumstances in applying the principle to the actual cases coming before the subordinate courts. Naturally I must recognise the need of the exercise of a considerable measure of discretion on the part of subordinate courts and the futility of laying down a rigid and exhaustive set of rules or formulae for applying the correct principle of O. 16 R. 1 C. P. C. However, it becomes necessary to attempt to ascertain the correct principle of O.16 R.1 as also to ascertain the broad guide lines that should be kept in mind while deciding individual cases. Before doing so, it will be proper to set out the facts of the present case.

5. In this case the non-applicant Ramakant filed a suit against the applicant Dalchand for damages for libel. Issues in the case were framed on 8-12 67 and parties were allowed 30 days time to produce list of witnesses and the date for recording evidence was fixed on 23.1.68. The plaintiff did not submit any list nor did he keep his witnesses ready on 23.1.68. On 231.68 the plaintiff sought an adjournment on the ground of illness of the advocate. An adjournment was granted and the case was fixed on 18.3 66 for plaintiffs evidence. On 18.3 68 the plaintiffs witnesses were not present in Court but the Presiding Officer was also on leave and the case was adjourned to 9.7.68. On 9.7 68 also the plaintiffs witnesses were not present. The plaintiff sought an adjournment. The defendant raised objection and the case was adjourned to 11.9.68. On 26.8.68 the plaintiff submitted an application for permission to file list of witnesses as required by O. 16, R. 1 C. P. C. This application came up before the court on 28 8 68. A notice was directed to be issued to the defendant. The application was adjourned for hearing on 11.9.68. On 11.9.68 two witnesses namely, Yagyanarain and Mohanlal, were present. The Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 15.11.68. On 15.11.68 three witnesses, namely, Yagyanarain, Mohanlal and Kanhaiyalal were present but the Presiding Officer was on leave. On the next date of hearing, that is, 25.2.69, the plaintiffs three witnesses were present. The application dated 26.8,68 was heard and the court allowed the plaintiffs application and ordered that the witnesses named in the list dated 26 8.68 would be permitted to be examined Aggrieved by this order, the defendant has filed the present revision application.

6. For proper interpretation of the Rule, it will be useful to review simultaneously the legislative history of the rule and the decisions of this Court interpreting the rule.

7. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document