Issue of summons to witnesses is not automatic.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The respondents in I.A.No. 4706 of 1999 who are the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 37 of 1998 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry are the petitioners herein.

2. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. 37 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry praying the Court to grant a decree declaring that the show cause-cum-charge sheet letter dated 6-1-1998 issued against the plaintiff by the defendants is unlawful, illegal and hence void ab initio and for various other reliefs.

3. In September 1999, the respondent took out two applications viz. I.A. Nos. 4705 and 4706 of 1999. The first one is to condone the delay in filing the list mentioned documents and receive the same. The second one is to condone the delay in filing the list of witnesses to be examined.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A. 4706 of 1999 it is stated that since the witnesses had to be contacted and their consent to come to the Court and give evidence had to be ascertained, he was not able to disclose the names of the witnesses in time and hence the delay occurred.

5. The petitioners resisted the application contending that the respondent has taken out the said application only to harass, irritate and abuse the process of law and unnecessarily waste the precious time of the Honourable Court and that the long list of witnesses is mentioned without any relevance or bearing on the facts of the case. It is also pointed out that as per law, the respondent is required to explain the purpose, relevance and the scope of examination of each of the witnesses to the satisfaction of the Court.

6. The learned District Munsif passed an order on this application on 21-9-1999 allowing the said application. In the said order the learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that there could be no justification for rejecting the relief of condoning the delay in filing the list of witnesses as it would not cause prejudice to the respondent; further the petitioners/defendants will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It also appears that after passing that order the learned District Munsif passed orders for issuance of summons to all the witnesses and called upon all of them to appear on 7-10-1999. As against the order of the learned District Munsif, this petition has been filed.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the prayer in I.A. 4706 of 1999 is only to condone the delay and receive the list of witnesses mentioned in the petition and there is no request in the application to issue summons. Even assuming that the respondent has made out a case for condoning the delay, the learned District Munsif has erred in ordering issuance of summons to all the witnesses viz. 23 in number, without complying the mandatory requirement of Order XVI, Ruler 1 and 2 viz. without calling upon the respondent to indicate for what purpose he wants to examine those witnesses.

8. Order XVI Ruler 1 and 2 read thus,

"1. List of witnesses and summons to witnesses.- (1) On or before such date as the Court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summons to such persons for their attendance in Court.

(2) A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court as application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the provision i.e. Order XVI, Ruler 1 and 2 in Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment read as under (at pages 927-928):

"8. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XVI casts an obligation on every party to a proceeding to present a list of witnesses who it proposed to call eithe