JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri M.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.328 of 2015 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The suit is filed for a decree against the defendants-petitioners directing them to pay the suit amount with interest, based on the alleged promissory note dated 01.10.2012 in favour of the plaintiffs, executed for the loan taken by the defendants.

3. The petitioners filed written statement inter alia denying taking of loan, execution of the promissory note, and the cheque, which as per the pleadings, are fabricated.

4. The petitioners filed I.A.No.92 of 2023 in O.S.No.328 of 2015, to issue summons to examine the scribe Sri K. Kishore Kumar, one of the attesters Sri K. S. Chandra Kumar of the promissory note and also one Sri G. Ramesh, Advocate, Chittoor.

5. It was pleaded, inter alia that the scribe of the promissory note gave to the petitioners a letter dated 25.01.2016, attested by a notary public, that the promissory note was fabricated. Copy of the said letter was filed and submitting that the proposed witnesses told the petitioners that, they would give evidence after summons are issued by the Court, I.A.No.92 of

2023 was filed.

6. The plaintiffs/respondents opposed I.A.No.92 of 2023. They filed counter. Their objection was that, the application was a devise to prolong the litigation. The original of the letter dated 25.01.2016, was not filed. It was also, an objection that, the said letter is subsequent to filing of the suit and was not relevant. The proposed witnesses were the private witnesses, which the petitioners, if they so desired, could produce of their own. The proposed witnesses were neither public officials nor Corporation officials. In the affidavit of D.W.1, it was no where mentioned that the witnesses proposed to be examined are hostile to the petitioners are not available and their presence could be secured only through the Court. Further, the petitioners volunteered that their witnesses are going to be examined on their side. It was only afterthought that, the letter dated 25.01.2016 was created. There was no ground to allow the application.

7. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor by order dated 17.04.2023 dismissed the I.A.No.92 of 2023.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit promissory note was fabricated. The scribe of the alleged suit promissory note wrote a letter dated 25.01.2016 to that effect which was duly attested by a notary public. Consequently to prove the letter dated 25.01.2016 as also that the promissory note was fabricated, summoning of the proposed witnesses was required.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in the case of Gopala Krishna Murthy vs. B. Ramachander Rao and others1 to contend that under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC, it is the right of the party at any stage of the suit to make application to the court seeking that summons be issued to the witnesses either to give evidence or to produce documents, and the court is not to refuse such an application on the ground that it might cause delay in the trial of the suit.

10. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.

1 AIR 1973 AP 309

11. The point for determination is whether the order dated 17.04.2023 rejecting the I.A.No.92 of 2023 under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC deserves to be quashed?

12. Order 16 Rule 1 CPC reads as under:

“Order XVI – Summoning and Attendance of Witnesses

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 person 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 t