Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The challenge in this revision petition, preferred by M/s IFB Industries Limited petitioner-defendant-company (for brevity “the defendant-company”), is to the impugned order dated 5.3.2014 (Annexure P7), by virtue of which, the trial Court has dismissed its application (Annexure P6) to disallow the examination of witness (PW) Bikramjit Nag.

2. Having heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-defendant- company, having gone through the legal provisions & record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this regard.

3. Ex facie, the argument of learned Senior counsel that since the trial Court has summoned PW Bikramjit Nag, along with other witnesses from Calcutta, in a very casual manner and without assigning any cogent reason, so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, is neither tenable nor the observations of Kerala High Court in case Jortin Antony and others v. Padmanabha Dasa Marthanda Varma and others 2000 AIR (Kerala) 369, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance on 4.10.1995. Defendant Nos.1 to 8 (therein) appeared and filed their written statement, whereas defendant No.9 did not appear to contest the suit. The contesting defendants in their written statement denied the claim of plaintiffs. The trial Court settled the issues on 17.10.1996. The plaintiffs sought to serve interrogatories on defendants No.1 to 8. The answers to the interrogatories were stated to have been furnished by the defendants. There was a complaint by the plaintiffs that the answers to the interrogatories were not complete and sought the striking off the defence in terms of Rule 21 of Order 11 of CPC. Thereafter, the plaintiffs (therein) fled a list of witnesses. In that list, they included the name of defendant Nos.1 to 8 as witnesses to be examined on their behalf. The application to summon defendant Nos.1 to 8 as witnesses filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. On the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, it was held that the party to the suit has no right to summon the opposite party as a witness to be examined on his side. At the same time, it was held that the Court has the power when it thinks necessary to examine a party to the suit or to compel a party to the suit to give evidence so as to enable it (the Court) to effectively adjudicate upon the lis, as contemplated under the amended Order 16 Rule 14 CPC.

4. Sequelly, in case Union Bank of India v. Muthiah (1999) 1 MLJ 679, the Madras High Court has observed that “the practice of summoning opposite party as witness has to be deprecated as the same will result to embarrass the judicial investigation.” Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid judgments, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the defendant-company in the instant controversy, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.

5. As is evident from the record that initially, M/s JBM Auto Components Ltd. respondent-plaintiff-company (for short “the plaintiff-company”) has instituted the civil suit (Annexure P2) for a decree of recovery of Rs.10,27,622/- against the defendant-company. The defendant-company contested its claim, filed the written statement (Annexure P3), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. A Coordinate Bench of this Court permitted the plaintiff-company to place on record the documents, reliance whereof was placed by it, vide order dated 14.2.2013 (Annexure P4). Having framed the issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties, by way of order dated 26.4.2011, the case was listed on 14.5.2011 for evidence of plaintiff-company on furnishing process fee, diet money and list of witnesses. In pursuance thereof, the plaintiff-company moved an application (Annexure P5) to summon its