A party must provide necessary pleadings to support evidence; without preceding mention in the suit, new applications for summoning witnesses are insufficient.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to allow the application I.A.No.22 filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 of CPC for examination of witness.

2. Heard Sri Satheesh T V, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Jai Prakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

3. Facts germane are as follows:

The petitioner is the plaintiff, respondents are the defendants. Owing to certain disturbance by the defendants over the property said to be owned by the petitioner, the petitioner institutes a suit in O.S.No.218 of 2010 against the respondents seeking permanent injunction. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the matter. The petitioner files an application under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 of the CPC seeking summoning of an Advocate who had allegedly caused the legal notice on the petitioner in the subject suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the summoning of the Advocate is imperative, as he has denied issuance of the legal notice, but admits that the Respondents had visited his office.

Therefore, the order is contrary to law is his submission.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would defend the order contending that causing of a legal notice has for the first time sprung in a suit after 15 years of its institution. Neither in the plaint, nor in any of the evidence, there was no mention about the legal notice by the plaintiff. Therefore, the concerned Court has rightly rejected the application is his submission.

5. The order of the concerned Court dated 08-07-2025 reads as follows:

“ORDERS ON I. A. NO.22 FILED U/O XVI RULE

1 AND 6 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC AND ORDERS ON I.A.NO.23 FILED U/S 151 OF CPC Counsel for plaintiff filed an application U/o 16 Rule 1 and 6 of CPC seeking to condone the delay if any in filing the witness list in support of his case. Further he files an application to reopen the case for examination of witness.

2. In the affidavits annexed to the applications, it is stated that the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and the matter is set down for arguments. At the time of cross examination of DW1 and 2 the legal notice dated 13.03.2006 was not admitted by them and the legal notice issued by Sri. K. Ishwar Bhat, advocate on behalf of the defendant no.1 in respect of suit schedule property and the said legal notice is very necessary to prove his case. Hence examination of said advocate and identification of said legal notice before this court is necessary to prove his case. Hence prayed to allow the applications.

3. Counsel for defendants filed objections stating that the application is not maintainable either under law or on facts and the contents of the affidavit annexed to the application are all false. The present suit is filed in the year 2010 and evidence commenced on 08.04.2013 and the plaintiff has not filed the witness list prior to commencement of evidence and he has filed present application after lapse of 12 years. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and not for the relief of specific performance and declaration. Examination of senior counsel K. Ishwar Bhat is not required in the present suit and the application filed to summon the witness in a suit for injunction is not necessary. Hence prayed to dismiss the applications.

4. Heard on both sides.

5. On the basis of application and objections, the following point would arise for my consideration:

1. Whether the applicant has made out grounds to allow the application?

2. What orde