Advocates:
['ANIL SETHI', '', 'M K RAINA', 'C L RAZDAN']

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU

C. Rev. No. 140/2007

CMP No. 149/2007

Date of decision: 04.02.2009

______________________________________________________

I-Up Bottling Company

Vs.

Bank of India

Coram:

MR. JUSTICE J. P. SINGH, JUDGE.

Appearing Counsel:

For the Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Anil Sethi, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) :

Mr. C. L. Razdan, Advocate.

i)

Whether approved for reporting

in Press/Journal/Media :

Yes

ii)

Whether to be reported

in Digest/Journal

:

Yes

__________________ _____________________________________ _

The Bank of India had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.

54,32,677.01 in this Court more than twenty years ago. This suit was

later transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge (Bank

Cases) Jammu, for its disposal.

Taking note of earlier interim orders passed during the currency

of the suit, the trial Court, vide its order of August 10, 2007, had

allowed opportunity to the petitioner- defendant to deposit Rs.

10,000/- as diet money for its out-station witnesses appearing at serial

nos. 5 to 10, 14, 20 and 21 of the list of witnesses, and Rs. 1500/- each

for rest of its witnesses who had to come from Jammu.

2

Petitioner-defendant did not comply with this order as a result

whereof the petitioner’s right to summon its witnesses through the

process of the Court was closed. The petitioner was, however,

permitted to produce its witnesses on its own.

Questioning the trial Court’s orders dated August 10, 2007 and

September 10, 2007, petitioner’s counsel submits that as the trial

Court had earlier accepted Rs. 100/- as diet money of the ex-station

witnesses, its order of August 10, 2007 was not justified, because no

provision of the Code of Civil Procedure may permit such a course.

He submits that order passed by the trial Court on September 10,

2007, closing petitioner’s right to summon its witnesses through Court

process, too, for the similar reasons, was liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, has justified

the trial Court’s orders, urging that ex-station witnesses, particularly

those enjoying the status of Chairman and Zonal Officer of Scheduled

Banks, cannot be compelled to appear in the Court unless the

petitioner had deposited in the Court the actual expenses which these

witnesses would have to defray to reach the Court house and spend for

their stay at Jammu.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

parties.

Before dealing with the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties it would be profitable to refer to what had weighed with

3

the trial Court to direct the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10,000/- each for

out-station witnesses, holding the status of Chairman and Zonal

Officer of the Bank. This order reads thus:-

“In order to succeed in their ulterior motive to

protract the litigation the defendants further

submitted a long list of 21 witnesses without

stating any specific purpose for which they are

called i.e. as to what they have to depose and as to

what they have to prove from the witness and their

diet expenses have been fixed at Rs. 100/- each

though the witnesses have to be summoned from

Mumbai, New Delhi, Chandigarh and Gaziabad

(UP) respectively. If a witness that too of a status

of Chairman of a Bank or the Zonal Officers of the

Bank who have to come from outside the State it

will take at least three days for them to appear in

this Court and that too if they travel by air. As such

the to and fro air fair will not cost them less than

Rs. 10,000/- each only, for travel even if no diet

expenses are defrayed to them for the minimum

three days they have to spend as appearing as a

witness. The present application has simply been

filed by the defendants so that the litigation does

come to a logical con