Back
1988 Supreme(Ori) 38
High Court Of Orissa
K. P. MOHAPATRA
BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO.LTD - Appellant
Versus
J.B.PATNAIK - Respondent
MISC. CASE APPEAL 50 Of 1987
Decided On : 03/09/1988
B.M.PATNAIK, R.MOHANTY
Parties to a suit are required to disclose the names of their witnesses to ensure fair trial and enable the adversary to prepare their case.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 16, RULE 1 - LIST OF WITNESSES - EXEMPTION FROM DISCLOSURE - THREATS TO WITNESSES - COURT'S DISCRETION - WITNESS PROTECTION.
Fact of the Case:
Defendants 1 to 3 filed a petition seeking exemption from disclosing the names of their witnesses in a suit, claiming that their witnesses were being threatened and tempted with money to desist from testifying against the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied the allegations and argued for fair trial and disclosure of witness names.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there is no provision in law to exempt a party from producing a list of witnesses to be examined in a suit. The court also noted that the defendants had not specified under which provision they were seeking the exemption.
Issues: 1. Whether a party can be exempted from disclosing the names of their witnesses in a suit? 2. Whether the court has the discretion to exempt a party from disclosing the names of their witnesses in a suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Order 16, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) mandates parties to present a list of witnesses they intend to call in a suit within a specified timeframe. 2. The court has the discretion to permit a party to call a witness not included in the list for sufficient cause shown.
Final Decision: The court declined to exempt the defendants from disclosing the names of their witnesses and directed them to submit a complete list of witnesses within fifteen days.
K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition by defendants 1 to 3 for exemption of compliance with the provisions of O. 16, R. 1 of the Civil P. C. ('code' for short ). It is stated in the petition that they came to know that their witnesses in the suit were threatened by the plaintiff and/or his representatives/supporters in order to gain them over. They are also being tempted with money so as to desist from giving evidence in the suit against the plaintiff and in support of defendants 1 to 3. The lives of the witnesses on account of threats are in danger. Therefore, in the interest of justice their names should not be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of O. 16, R. 1 of the Code. They have undertaken to produce the witnesses in time whenever they are called upon to be examined.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff in a counter has stoutly denied the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that none of the witnesses of defendants 1 to 3 has been threatened by him or his representatives or supporters. None of them has been gained over or tempted with money so as to desist them from giving evidence against him and in support of these defendants. Their lives are also not in danger. As a matter of fact, until 30-7-1987, when defendants 1 to 3 filed their list of three witnesses, he had no occasion to know the names of their witnesses. It is stated that for fair trial of the suit and in the interest of justice he should be given sufficient time to ascertain the antecedents and the background of the witnesses who are to figure as defence witnesses so that he would be in a position to lead appropriate and necessary evidence, as well as to enable his Advocate to crossexamine the said witnesses.
( 3 ) A rejoinder has been filed by defendants 1 to 3 denying some of the statements made in the plaintiff's counter. It is not necessary to make specific reference to the same.
( 4 ) BY order dt. 31-7-1987, on the prayer of the learned counsel for defendants 1 to 3 the effect that if necessary he will file an additional list of witnesses later, these defendants were allowed to do so within ten days. No such list of witnesses was, however, filed within the specified date.
( 5 ) FOR facility of reference, Rr. 1 and 1a of O. 16 of the Code are reproduced below : -"rule 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 the 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 summonses 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 an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. (3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the fist referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), summonses referred to in this rule may be obtained by parties on an application to the Court or to such officer as may be appointed by the Court in this behalf. Rule 1a. Subject to the provisions of sub- rule (3) of Rule 1, any party to the suit may, without applying for summons under R. 1, bring any witness to give evidence or to produce documents. "a plain interpretation of the provisions made in R. 1 shows that a party cannot be excepted from producing the list of witnesses to be examined by him in the suit. That is why defendants 1 to 3 have not stated in the petition under consideration as to under what provision they have filed the same to withhold the names of their witnesses to be examined in the suit.
( 6 ) ORDER 16, R. 1 came to be interpreted by thi
