The duty of the court to ensure witness appearance and the coercive nature of the process under Section 32 and Order XVI Rule 10, while rejecting vexatious applications and assisting genuine litigants in proving their case.

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 4. 2009 in unnumbered I.A.No. of 2009 in O.S.No.368 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the revision petitioner to issue a proclamation as per Order XVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure requiring the District Registrar, Ariyalur to produce the sale note book of stamp papers was rejected.

BACKGROUND FACTS:-

2. The civil suit in O.S.No.368 of 2004 was instituted by the first respondent against the revision petitioner and second respondent praying for a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The suit was contested by the revision petitioner by filing written statement. Subsequently the suit was taken up for trial.

3. While the matters stood thus, the petitioner filed an application to summon the District Registrar for the purpose of producing the register maintained by the stamp vendor, who alleged to have sold stamp papers for creating Ex.A.4 in favour of the second respondent. Even though the trial court allowed the application in I.A.No.326 of 2008 and issued summons to the District Registrar, Ariyalur, the document was not produced and accordingly the application was closed.

4. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application invoking Order XVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an order to issue proclamation calling upon the District Registrar, Ariyalur to produce the document.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it was the contention of the petitioner that the document in Ex.A.4 is a forged one and the said document was created by making use of non-judicial stamp paper, which was stated to have been purchased from a stamp vendor doing business in Perambalur District which is about several hundred kilometres from Sullipalayam, where he is residing. It was only for the purpose of proving the purchase of stamp papers from a vendor, who is doing business elsewhere, he summoned the document from the office of the District Registrar. However in spite of his application in I.A.No.326 of 2008 and the order passed by the trial court to summon the document, the District Registrar, for the reasons best known to him, failed to produce the document. Accordingly the petitioner prayed for issuance of proclamation within the meaning of Order XVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to cause production of the document.

6. The said application was filed on 3-4-2009. The learned trial Judge even without registering the application, rejected the same as per order dated 3-4-2009.

7. According to the learned trial Judge, the petitioner has filed two applications earlier for the purpose of summoning the document. However he was not able to procure the document in spite of granting eighteen adjournments for the said purpose. According to the trial Court, it was a seven year old case and the respondents are senior citizens and as such the application was only for the purpose of dragging the matter. Accordingly the application was rejected. It is the said order which is impugned in the civil revision petition.

DISCUSSION:-

8. The petitioner originally filed an application in I.A.No.326 of 2008 to send for the Register regarding sale of stamp papers from the office of the District Registrar, Ariyalur. The said application was allowed by the trial Judge and summons to that effect was issued to the District Registrar. However the District Registrar failed to respond and ultimately the application was closed. It is true that the Lower Court granted about eighteen adjournments for the purpose of producing the document. However the petitioner was not the sole cause for the delay. The delay was only on account of the failure of the witness to produce the document. It was only in the said circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present application to procure the attendance of the witness.

9. The Civil Procedure Code (hereinafte