Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 5913
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Sunanda Sharma Wd/o Late Sushil Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Bahura Devi Choubey – Respondent
WP227 No. 364 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal
For the Respondents: Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L.
Parties may summon witnesses regardless of whether they are listed, emphasizing the need for procedures to serve justice and not hinder it.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 16 Rule 2 - The petitioner challenged the rejection of the application to summon a witness not listed. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to present evidence but failed to list the witness. The Supreme Court held that parties can summon witnesses even if not listed, emphasizing that procedural rules should facilitate justice, not obstruct it. The court found the trial court's rejection erroneous. (Paras 3-12)
(B) Justice requires flexibility in the application of procedural law, aligning with established case law that dictates procedural rules should not impede substantial justice. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit for title and injunction based on a will-deed. The application to summon the Sub-Registrar was rejected by the trial court on procedural grounds.
Findings of Court:
The learned trial court's order rejecting the application is set aside, allowing the petitioner to summon the proposed witness.
Issues: Whether a party can summon a witness not listed in the witness list and the implications of procedural rules on justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court affirmed that parties may summon witnesses irrespective of their listing, stressing the importance of observing justice over strict adherence to procedural restrictions.
Result: Petition allowed, and application under Order 16 Rule 2 of CPC stands allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case and procedural history (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on evidence and procedures under cpc (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural laws (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's ruling on the trial court's order (Para 12) |
| 5. final conclusion allowing the application (Para 13) |
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board
23-04-2025 Heard on admission.
1) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara in Civil Suit No. A/ 7/ 2021 dated 11.03.2025, whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 2 of CPC has been rejected.
2) Facts of the present case are that:-
(i) The petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession after eviction over the suit property on the basis of the will-deed dated 10.06.2016. Defendants No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 filed a written statement and defendants No. 6 and 7 were proceeded ex-parte.
(ii) The learned trial Court framed issues; the plaintiff led evidence. On 11.03.2025, the plaintiff was cross-examined and on the same date, she moved an application U/o 16 Rule 2 of CPC to examine the Sub- Registrar, Saja before whom the registered will-deed dated 10.06.2016 was executed and registered. The application was objected to by the defendants.
(iii) Learned Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that this witness was not in the list of witnesses submitted by the plaintiff. It was also observed that the plaintiff was afforded sufficient opportunity to lead evidence but the listed witnesses were not present and thus closed the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence. Another application under Order 17 Rule 2 of CPC was also moved and it was also rejected.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 2 of CPC , it is not necessary to examine the listed witnesses and the parties to the lis may examine any witness and summons may be issued to such witnesses. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Mahaboosa Begum & Ors. Versus Tamil Nadu Waqf Board & Anr. reported in (2016) 16 SCC 653 wherein it is held that it would be open to the parties to raise all the contention available to them at law and produce documents which should have been produced by the trial Court. He prays to set-aside the order passed by the learned trial Court.
4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. He submits that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner to lead evidence but she failed, therefore, her right was closed. He further submits that the Sub-Registrar, Saja was not a listed witness, therefore, the application moved under Order 16 Rule 2 of CPC was rejected.
5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.
6) Order 16 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC reads as under:-
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 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 list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such part 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 the parties on an
