This revision petition challenged a trial court's refusal to permit the petitioner to examine defendants as witnesses under Order 16 Rule 7(A) CPC. The High Court, relying on a coordinate Bench judgment, allowed the petition and granted permission.
Permission was granted to examine defendants No. 1 and 17 as the petitioner's witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Civil Revision No. 65 of 2023
Date of Decision: 03.12.2025
Harbans Lal
.....Petitioner.
Versus
Bir Singh and Ors. …..Respondents. Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
| Whether approved for reporti | ng?1 | |
|---|---|---|
| For the Petitioner: | Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. | |
| For the Respondents: | Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advo respondents No.23(b), 24(a) to 25(d). |
cate, for and 25(a) |
| All the respondents proceeded parte, except respondents 24(a) and 25(a) to 25(d). |
against ex No.23(b), |
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
The present petition has been preferred against the
impugned order dated 09.02.2023, whereby an application filed under Order 16 Rule 7(A) CPC seeking permission of the Court to examine defendants No.1-Bir Singh and 17Punjab Singh as present petitioner’s/plaintiff’s witnesses has been rejected.
2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the petition.
3. At the very outset, I need to record my appreciation
for the counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
respondents, who has fairly drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court reported as 2008 (3) Shim. LC 176, titled Ram Das and Ors. Vs. Suresh Chander Prashar (CMPMO No.182 of 2008). The relevant extract whereof is reproduced herein below:-
“10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents places reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in V.P. Subramaniam vs. P.Saraswathi, 2003(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 604, holding that Order 16 Rule 7 and 7A does not permit the other side to be examined as a witness. With respect, I cannot persuade myself to accept this proposition as the preponderance of the precedent is otherwise. Summoning the other party as witness may not be a rule or a general practice which is to be followed, but at the same time, why should a party shy away from the witness box?
12. If the presence of the opposite party is required for the discharge of its burden and onus, I find that Order 16 Rule 21 is not a bar for examination of the opposite side as a witness. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted.”
4. The aforesaid binding judgment, it appears was
never brought to the notice of the learned trial Court. In
view of the law laid down therein, the present petition is
3
allowed. Application filed under Order 16 Rule 7(A) CPC seeking permission of the Court to examine defendants No.1 and 17, as filed by the present petitioner, is allowed.
Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court
on 18.12.2025 .
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge
03rd December, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned refusal to permit the petitioner to examine defendants as witnesses was sustainable in light of the coordinate Bench judgment.
Whether Order 16 Rule 7(A) CPC permits summoning the opposite party as a witness despite the cited Madras High Court view.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Das and Ors. Vs. Suresh Chander PrasharReferred¶19
2008 (3) Shim. LC 176, Ram Das and Ors. Vs. Suresh Chander Prashar
V.P. Subramaniam vs. P.SaraswathiReferred¶20
V.P. Subramaniam vs. P.Saraswathi, 2003(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 604
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harbans Lal
Bir Singh and Ors.
Bipin Chander Negi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
