2000 (7) TMI 1008 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the trial court's order allowing the defendant to examine two additional witnesses under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC.
3. Exercise of judicial discretion by the trial court.
4. Impact on the plaintiff's case and potential delay in the trial.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Trial Court's Order:
The petitioner, a practicing advocate, challenged the trial court's order dated 10.1.2000, which allowed the defendant to examine two additional witnesses, Dinesh Parwani and Montoo Jasnani, under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC. The trial court permitted this subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 1000/-. The petitioner argued that the order was without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1(1) to 1(4) CPC, invoking Section 115(i)(a) CPC.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The petitioner contended that the defendant's application lacked the necessary details as required under Order 16 Rule 1(1) CPC, such as the purpose for summoning the witnesses. The petitioner emphasized that the trial court failed to record sufficient cause for the omission of the witnesses' names in the initial list, as mandated by Sub-Clause (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC.

3. Exercise of Judicial Discretion:
The respondent's counsel argued that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and exercised its discretion appropriately. The trial court's decision was based on the fact that the plaintiff had amended the plaint, necessitating the examination of additional witnesses. The court found that the defendant had shown sufficient cause for the omission, and the order was not without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.

4. Impact on the Plaintiff's Case and Potential Delay:
The petitioner argued that allowing the additional witnesses would cause irreparable loss and delay the trial. However, the court noted that the plaintiff had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and rebut their evidence. The court emphasized that procedural rules should not impede the administration of justice and that the trial court's decision aimed to ensure a fair trial.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the trial court had the jurisdiction to invoke Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC and permit the examination of additional witnesses. The trial court's order was not contrary to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1(1) to 1(4) CPC. The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court's order and directing the trial court to expedite the suit's decision within three months. The court emphasized that procedural rules should not hinder justice and that the trial court had appropriately exercised its discretion in allowing the additional witnesses.