Dismissed

Jagdish Digambar Chaudhari v. Vaishali Sudhir Patil and Others

Bombay HC10 Jan 2023WP/9044/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for issuing a witness summons. The Court held that since the petitioner failed to file a list of witnesses or show sufficient cause for omission under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC, it was not inclined to interfere with the trial court's impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merits due to non-compliance with Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC.

Jagdish Digambar Chaudhari Vs Vaishali Sudhir… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 wp 9044.22.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 9044 OF 2022

¶4

Jagdish Digambar Chaudhari .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Vaishali Sudhir Patil and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A. M. Gholap, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.

¶8

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2023.

¶9

FINAL ORDER :

¶10

. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17^th February, 2022 passed by the Trial Court below Exhibit 192 in R.C.S. No. 229 of 2012, whereby the application of the petitioner for issuance of witness summons to the Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL came to be rejected.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, suit has been filed by the respondent No. 1 for eviction and in order to prove the comparative hardship, the Junior Telecom Officer is sought to be examined. He has invited attention of this Court to the pleadings in the written statement that the respondent No. 1’s husband was in service of BSNL and he has been allotted Government quarter, which has been denied by the Respondent No 1 in her evidence. He would further urge that the Trial Court

¶13

2 wp 9044.22.odt

¶14

has erred in observing that there is no pleading to that effect in the written statement.

¶15

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that it is only to fill in lacuna in the evidence, the application for issuance of witness summons is made, which has been rightly rejected.

¶16

Present controversy is pertaining to the issuance of witness summons, which is governed by the provisions of Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “Code”). Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code provides that 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 summons to such person for their attendance in Court. Admittedly, in the present case, no such list has been filed by the petitioner and after trial has commenced, application has been filed for issuance of witness summons. In such contingency, when the petitioner seeks issuance of summons to witness not referred in the list of witness, sub Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XVI of the Code provides that the application should show sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. Perusal of the application dated 17.02.2022 filed by the petitioner shows that no such explanation has been submitted by the petitioner. As such there is no compliance of Order XVI Rule 1(3) of the Code. Considering the non compliance with the provisions of Order XVI of the Code, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶17

3 wp 9044.22.odt

¶18

Writ petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶20

bsb/Jan. 23

Jagdish Digambar Chaudhari v. Vaishali Sudhir Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Digambar Chaudhari v. Vaishali Sudhir Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Maruti Vayase and Others Vs the Collector Osmanabad through the District Inspector and Others

Sai Constructions through Chief Owner Rajabhau Shriram Phad Vs Macnally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. through Jayanta Dhiren Das

Noorjahan Hakkani Pasha Quadri Vs Nuruddin Alias Shaker Akbar Jahagirdar and Others

Saurabh Babasaheb Kale Vs Dnyaneshwar Babasaheb Shelke

Ankush Mansing Rathod Vs Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Sundar Nagar and Another

Brijesh Bhavarilalji Sanghvi and Another Vs Amrutraj Bhavarilalji Sanghvi Died Thr Lrs Ritesh Amrutraj Sanghvi and Others