The interpretation of Order 16 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure regarding the filing of a list of witnesses and its relation to the recasting and resettlement of issues is based on the date of settlement of issues when the application for resettlement of issues has been finally decided.

N.C.Jain, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the orders dated 5-8-1991 arm 22-8-1991. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted at the very outset that if the order dated 5-8-1991 is set aside, the order dated 22-8-1991 would automatically fall.

2. The facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the revision petition may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of redemption of the mortgaged property. The petitioner filed a list of 18 witnesses which has been declined after making a reference to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. It has been observed in the impugned order that no list of witnesses was furnished within the stipulated time and therefore, the witnesses cannot be allowed to be summoned. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to my notice that defendant No. 1 filed an application for recasting and resettlement of issues on 2-4-1991 and that the aforesaid application was decided on 30-7-1991. Thereafter, the application for summoning 18 witnesses was filed alongwith the diet money and since the application was filed within 3 days of the dismissal of the application for re-settlement of issues, the same be held to have been filed within time as per the mandate of Order 16 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In reply to the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, it has been argued by the counsel for defendant No. 1 that 15 days expired on 6-4-1991 as the issues were initially framed on 22-3-1991 and no list of witnesses having been filed within 15 days from the date of initial framing of issues, it would be too late in the day of permit the petitioner to file a list of witnesses.

3. After hearing counsel for the parties, l am of the view that the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner has got merit and deserves to be accepted. The contention of counsel for defendant No. 1 might have been accepted if the petitioner had not filed an application for recasting and resettlement of issues. Once the application for recasting and resettlement of issues has been decided on a particular date, it gives a fresh right to the petitioner to file a list of Witnesses within 15 days of the settlement of issues and this is what has been precisely done by the petitioner. In my considered view the trial Court has put a Very narrow construction on the wording of Order 16 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court seems to have thought that once no application has been filed for summoning the witnesses within the stipulated period after the issues were initially framed, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file a list of Witnesses even though the application for resettlement of issues has been decided at a later stage. In the eye of law, the date of settlement of issues would be that date when the application for resettlement of issues has been finally decided. This seems to be the only interpretation of Order 16 Rule 1 Code of Civil procedure.

4. For the reasons recorded above, the order dated 5-8-1991 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to take further action on the list of witnesses filed on 2-8-1991. Since the basic order 5-8-1991 has been set aside, the order passed on the application dated 22-8-1991 also falls. The parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the trial Court on 6-1-1992. No costs.