The court upheld the trial court's discretion under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC, sections 148 and 151 CPC, emphasizing that the supervisory jurisdiction should only be invoked in cases of patent perversity, gross and manifest failure of justice, or flouting of basic principles of natural justice.

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.:-

1. This is a petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir seeking quashing of order dated 08.02.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jammu in a civil suit, titled, Gurdeep Singh Bijral v. Union of India and Ors. to the extent it allows two applications, one moved by respondents (defendants) 1 & 3 and the other by respondent (defendant) No. 2 and permits them to file the lists of their witnesses, which they had failed to file within stipulated period after framing of the issues, and to deposit their diet expenses and take dasti summons for their appearance. The impugned order would show that issues in the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff were framed on 07.08.2010 and parties were directed to file lists of witnesses within 15 days. Respondents/defendants did not file lists of their witnesses within the stipulated time. After decision in the preliminary issues, the petitioner entered his evidence, which came to be closed on 22.01.2014. At this stage, the two applications came to be filed by the respondents seeking permission to file lists of witnesses and to deposit their diet expenses. Petitioner opposed these applications.

2. Learned trial court in reference to Order 16, Rule 1 CPC, which provides that parties to the suit shall file lists of their witnesses in the court not later than 15 days after the date of framing of the issues, allowed the applications observing in the impugned order that the 'provision for filing the lists of witnesses within 15 days from the date of framing the issues is not mandatory but directory in nature' and observing further that 'court has discretion to entertain it after expiry of requisite time. This discretion has to be exercised judicially and on sufficient reasons' and holding that 'defendants have shown sufficient cause in not furnishing list of witnesses in time'. In allowing these applications, learned trial court also drew support from sections 148 and 151 CPC.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the learned trial court did not accord consideration to the grounds on which applications were opposed by him. Averments made in paragraph 7 of the ' petition would show that the petitioner (plaintiff) had questioned the requirement of evidence sought to be led by the defendants on the strength of decisions/judgments in earlier litigation between the parties. Besides, it is contended by the petitioner that the trial court has passed short and cryptic order taking resort to Section 148 CPC without recording any other reason for allowing the applications and has therefore, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.

5. Mr. Anil Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that requirement of filing lists of witnesses within 15 days after framing of the issues is mandatory and time could not have been extended by the trial court. In support Mr. Sethi cited Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan, AIR 1983 SC 925 and Mehta Yog Raj v. All J & K Labanan Sikh Centre Gurdwara, 1997 KLJ 50 : JKJ Soft JKJ/11368. Mr. Sethi urged that the evidence sought to be adduced through the witnesses mentioned in the lists is aimed at prolonging the proceedings as such evidence was not required in view of the earlier decisions between the same parties but the learned trial court did not accord consideration to the objection in this regard raised by the petitioner. In support Mr. Sethi placed reliance on Yashpal Sawhney v. Gandotra Traders, 1994 JKLR 658 : JKJ Soft JKJ/12812. Mr. Sethi urged further that learned trial court has committed patent error by drawing support from section 148 CPC because the provision contained in that section has been drastically amended and in no case extension of time can exceed beyond 30 days after the stipulated time, whereas learned trial court has granted extension in time for filing the lists of witnesses to the responde