The court emphasized the necessity of stating the purpose for summoning witnesses to avoid unnecessary delays and ensure relevance in judicial proceedings.

J U D G M E N T

(Dated this the 20 th day of November, 2024) Plaintiffs in a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages are the petitioners herein.

Petitioners are challenging Ext.P12 order by which summons were issued to the Witnesses Nos.1 & 2 in Ext.P10 List of Witnesses dated 30.06.2024 submitted by the defendants in the suit. The Witness No. 1 is the Financial Administrator of Arch Diocese of Verapoly and Witness No. 2 is the Secretary, Corporation of Kochi.

2. When this Original Petition was admitted, interim stay was granted with respect to the summoning of Witness No.1. Both sides concede that the documents were produced by the Witness No.2 and hence the purpose of summoning the Witness No.2 is over. Hence the question to be considered in this Original Petition is whether Ext.P12 order issuing summons to Witness No.1 is sustainable or not.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K.L Joseph and the learned counsel for the respondents,

-4- 2024:KER:87181 Sri. Yash Thomas Mannully.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Ext.P12 order is passed in violation of Order 16, Rule 1(2) of CPC which mandates that a party who is desirous of obtaining a summons against the witness shall state the purpose for summoning the witness in the Application. The learned counsel further contended that the defendant had earlier submitted Ext.P3 List of Witnesses dated 24.01.2024 including the very same Witnesses and this Court considered the necessity of summoning those witnesses in Ext.P9 judgment and in view of the finding in Ext.P9 judgment, the summoning of those witnesses in Ext.P2 does not arise. Learned counsel invited my attention to the findings in Ext.P9 judgment that the records are required to find out whether the respondents therein are the real owners in respect of the scheduled premises who are entitled to claim arrears of rent as also the damages; and that the petitioners at this stage has no right to challenge the title of the landlord for the reason that they had attorned the present land lords ever since 1993 up to 2003 until they vacated the premises and they have been -5- 2024:KER:87181 paying rent all along up to 2018 to them recognizing as the land lords.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the reason for summoning the Witnesses included in Ext.P10 Witness List is specifically stated in Ext.P11 Application and Ext.P9 judgment of this Court does not deal with the present contention raised by the defendants that the persons who have filed the claim do not have any authority to institute the plaint.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and Others v. K.D Ganapathi and Another [2011(12) SCC 600] to substantiate the point that while summoning the witnesses a party has to disclose the relevancy of the evidence with regard to the issues arising in the suit. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Yashpal Sawhney v. Gandotra Traders (M/s.) and Others [AIR 1995 J&K 32] in which it is held that the purpose for summoning a witness is to be specifically stated and it is a necessary requirement and-6- 2024:KER:87181 in the absence of such requirement the Court shall disallow the summoning of the witness.

7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and Others [2005(4)SCC480] to substantiate the legal proposition that the procedural law shall not stand in the way of advancement of justice and a party shall not be denied opportunity to participate in the process of procedure dispensation.

8. I have considered the rival contentions.

9. Admittedly, during the pendency of the suit the plaint schedule premises were surrendered on 27.11.2023 by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. Order 16 Rule 1(2) CPC mandates that a party who is desirous of obtainin