THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2593 of 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in I.A.No.336 of 2022 in O.S.No.84 of 2014, dated 21.07.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad, wherein, the application filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC came to be allowed.

2. Petitioners herein are the respondents-defendants and the respondent herein is the petitioner-plaintiff in I.A.No.336 of 2022 in O.S.No.84 of 2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below failed to consider the fact that the respondent-petitioner- plaintiff intentionally dragged the matter from the year 2014 and the suit was dismissed for default on 23.09.2019, restored on 24.01.2022 and thereafter, I.A.No.366 of 2022 came to be filed on 13.10.2022 which was ordered on 21.07.2023 to record the statements which is totally illegal and failed to consider the contentions of the petitioners-respondents-defendants. The Court below failed to see that the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff failed to submit the list of witnesses within fifteen (15) days from the date of framing the issues and prayed to set aside the order.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the contentions raised by the parties and allowed the petition and issued summons to the editors of different newspapers. There is no embargo in filing the application to summon the witnesses. No interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

5. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan – 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985).

6. Respondent-petitioner-plaintiff has filed suit for damages against the petitioners-respondents-defendants claiming an amount of Rs.8 lakhs. The plaint goes to show that defendant No.1 (petitioner No.1 herein) has given a defamatory statement against the plaintiff (respondent herein) in various Telugu daily newspapers by causing heavy damage to his reputation.

7. It is appropriate to refer order XVI Rule 1 which reads as under:

“(1) List of witness 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 persons 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 party 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 application to the Court or to such officer as may be appointed by the Court in this behalf within five days of presenting the list of witnesses under sub-rule(1).”

8.1. On perusal of the application filed by the respondent- petitioner-plaintiff in I.A.No.366 of 2022, which states that he filed the suit for damages and petitioners-respondents-defendants have made defamat