LALITHA J. RAJ versus AITHAPPA RAJ

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 861 · Decided: 27-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--,t' 
- I 
/ 
' 
LALITHA J. RAJ 
A 
v. 
AITHAPPA RAJ 
APRIL 27, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Order 16-Rules I and l(A)-List of witnesses-Furnishing of-Delay 
in-f'wty to give reasons-Application could be allowed if there are sufficient C 
~easons for the delay, as there is no total prohibition. 
In a suit tiled by the appellant-Plaintiff, the plaintiff tiled an applica-
tion enclosing list of witnesses for summoning them for adduction of 
evidence to prove her case. As a general power of attorney holder, her 
l!nsband tiled an affidavit stating that he was under bona-fide mistaken D 
impression that the list of witnesses was already filed, and therefore, the 
failure io file the list of witnesses was not intentional. The trial Court 
dismissed the application holding that there was no proper explanation 
for the delay. On revision, the High Court declined to interfere. Hence this 
appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The legislature did not put a total prohibition on the party 
to produce the witnesses or the production of the documents for proof of the 
respective case. Nonetheless, when they seek the assistance of the Court, F 
they are enjoined to give reasons as to why they have not filed the applica-
tion within the time prescribed under Rule 1 of Order 16. [863-B, Cl 
2. In the application it was stated by the husband of the appellant 
that they were under the bonafide impression that they had already tiled 
the list of the witnesses alongwith the documents and that the mistake of G 
non-filing the list was discovered when they were getting ready for the trial. 
It is not in dispute that the trial is yet to begin. The trial court committed 
illegality in ·refusing to receive the list for summoning the witnesses for 
adduction of evidence by the plaintiff. The orders of the trial court and the 
High Court are set aside. The list already furnished is a valid list. The trial H 
861 
862 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A court is directed to summon the witnesses for examination on behalf of the 
plaintiff. [863·C to E] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5699 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.93 of the Karnataka High 
Court in C.R.P. 2539 of 1993. 
Ms. Sangeeta Agrawal and S.K. Kulkarni for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The appellant plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of title and for 
possession of the plaint schedule property. On Augnst 3, 1993 the appellant 
filed an application enclosing the list of witnesses to issue summons to them 
for adduction of evidences to prove her case. In the affidavit filed by the 
husband, who is the general power of attorney holder, it was stated that he 
was under bonafide mistaken impression that the list of witnesses was 
already filed, but he noticed that mistake when he was getting ready, in 
consultation with the counsel, to adduce evidence at the trial. It was, 
therefore, stated that the failure to file the list of witnesses was not 
intentional. Accordingly, he sought permission of the court to file the list 
of witnesses. The trial court in its order dated September 6 ,1993 dismissed 
the application holding that there is no proper ~xplanation for the delay in 
filing the list of witnesses. On revision, the High Court of Karnataka 
declined to interfere with the order. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
Order 16 Rules 1 and l(A) adumbrate that the witne.s at the trial 
court arc to be produced for examination by the parties by their filing the 
list, and omission thereon prohibits them to avail the assistance of the court 
to secure their attendance to give evidence or to produce documents on 
their behalf. It is true that the legislature amended Order 16 Rule 1 and 
added rule l(A) to see that the undue delay should not be caused iu the 
trial of the suit by filing list of witnesses or the documents at belated stage. 
Thereby, it envisages that on or before the date fixed by the court for 
settlement of issues and not later than 15 days after the date on which 
issues were settled, the parties are to file the list of such witnesses whom 
they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and 
-
\ 
r-
> 
"'"' 
l . 
• . 1 
LALITHA v. ARAI 
863 
they are required to obtaiu summous to such witnesses for their attendance A 
in the court. On their failure to do the same, R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.