Advocates:
['ANIL SETHI', '', 'V B GUPTA', 'AJAY SHARMA', 'CGSC', '', 'N P KOTWAL']

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

Petition u/s 104 No. 14/2014

CMA No. 19/2014

Date of decision: 0.02.2015

Gurdeep Singh Bijral vs. Union of India and ors.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Janak Raj Kotwal-Judge

Appearing counsel:

For petitioner (s):

Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate

For respondent(s):

Mr. Ajay Sharma, CGSC

(i) Whether to be reported in

Press, Journal/Media:

Yes

(ii) Whether to be reported in

Journal/Digest:

Yes

1.

This is a petition under section 104 of the Constitution

of Jammu and Kashmir seeking quashing of order

dated 08.02.2014 passed by learned Additional

District Judge, Jammu in a civil suit, titled, Gurdeep

Singh Bijral v. Union of India and ors. to the extent it

allows two applications, one moved by respondents

(defendants) 1 & 3 and the other by respondent

(defendant) No. 2 and permits them to file the lists of

their witnesses, which they had failed to file within

stipulated period after framing of the issues, and to

deposit their diet expenses and take dasti summons

for their appearance.

2

2.

The impugned order would show that issues in the

suit filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff were framed on

07.08.2010 and parties were directed to file lists of

witnesses within 15 days. Respondents/defendants

did not file lists of their witnesses within the

stipulated time. After decision in the preliminary

issues, the petitioner entered his evidence, which

came to be closed on 22.01.2014. At this stage, the

two applications came to be filed by the respondents

seeking permission to file lists of witnesses and to

deposit their diet expenses. Petitioner opposed these

applications.

3.

Learned trial court in reference to Order 16, Rule 1

CPC, which provides that parties to the suit shall file

lists of their witnesses in the court not later than 15

days after the date of framing of the issues, allowed

the applications observing in the impugned order

that the 8provision for filing the lists of witnesses

within 15 days from the date of framing the issues is

not mandatory but directory in nature9 and

observing further that 8court has discretion to

entertain it after expiry of requisite time. This

discretion has to be exercised judicially and on

sufficient reasons9 and holding that 8defendants have

shown sufficient cause in not furnishing list of

witnesses in time.9 In allowing these applications,

3

learned trial court also drew support from sections

148 and 151 CPC.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

5.

Petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on

the ground that the learned trial court did not accord

consideration to the grounds on which applications

were opposed by him. Averments made in paragraph

7 of the petition would show that the petitioner

(plaintiff) had questioned the requirement of

evidence sought to be led by the defendants on the

strength of decisions/judgments in earlier litigation

between the parties. Besides, it is contended by the

petitioner that the trial court has passed short and

cryptic order taking resort to section 148 CPC without

recording any other reason for allowing the

applications and has therefore, failed to exercise the

jurisdiction vested in it.

6.

Mr. Anil Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that requirement of filing lists of witnesses

within 15 days after framing of the issues is

mandatory and time could not have been extended

by the trial court. In support Mr. Sethi cited Mange

Ram v. Brij Mohan, AIR 1983 SC 925 and Mehta Yog

Raj v. All J&K Labanan Sikh Centre Gurdwara, 1997

KLJ 50. Mr. Sethi urged that the evidence sought to

4

be adduced through the witnesses mentioned in the

lists is aimed at prolonging the proceedings a