The court possesses discretion under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC to summon witnesses, but such summoning must be justified; mere necessity for a hearing does not suffice.

ORDER

This application has been filed by the applicants to issue summons to the second and third plaintiffs and examine them as witnesses.

2.The main suit is filed for partition and declaration, to declare the settlement deeds as null and void.

3.According to the applicants, they are the defendants 1 & 2. The deceased plaintiff filed the suit for partition as against the defendants and during the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died and his sons were impleaded as the plaintiffs 2 & 3. Already the evidence of plaintiffs’ side was closed and now the case is posted for defendants’ side witnesses. During the pendency of the suit, the first plaintiff died on 07.10.2025 and thereafter, the second and the third plaintiffs were impleaded as parties. The applicants/defendants claimed that though they had acquired the property through valid transactions, but they were put to unnecessary sufferings by the plaintiffs under the guise of the present suit. Therefore, the examination of the plaintiffs 2 & 3 is very essential for full-fledged trial and for proper appreciation of the facts of the case. The examination of the second and third plaintiffs is very relevant to bring out all the earlier claims of the plaintiffs by filing the suit with false averments. Therefore, the second and the third plaintiffs have to be examined as witnesses and summons have to be issued to them.

4.The respondents filed a counter, denying all the allegations levelled in the affidavit filed in support of the application and that the application is not maintainable. The second plaintiff has not produced any authorisation from the first plaintiff to file the application. In fact, after examination of plaintiffs’ side witnesses, the case was posted for defendants’ side evidence. The first defendant also filed the written statement and the same was adopted by the second defendant. The person, who sworn to the affidavit, was examined as DW1 without obtaining any leave from the Court. After examination of DW1 and at the stage of continuance of cross examination, the original plaintiff died and thereafter, the plaintiffs 2 & 3 were impleaded. In the meanwhile, the fourth defendant also died and thereafter, steps have been taken and now the matter is posted for cross examination of DW1. At this stage, the present petition is filed. Already the original plaintiff was examined as PW1 and all the questions put to him by the defendants, were answered by him. After the examination of PW1, he died on 07.10.2023. The other plaintiffs and the defendants are children of the first plaintiff. The petitioners should have examined the first defendant as a witness to cull out the truth. Without doing so, they have chosen to file this application to examine the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as witnesses. They cannot compel the second and the third plaintiffs to examine as witnesses and only in order to harass the respondents, they are attempting to fill up the lacunae under the guise of present application, which is impermissible.

Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the records.

6.In this case, it is admitted fact that already the plaintiffs’ side evidence was closed. Now the case is posted for examination of DW1 and the chief was completed and the matter was adjourned for continuation of cross examination of DW1. At this stage, the applicants have filed the application to examine the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as witnesses. As per Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC, the Court has power to summon the witnesses where the Court thinks it necessary to examine any person other than a party to the suit and not called as a wi