HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPU Writ Petition (227) No.3712 of 2010 PETITIONER/: (DefendantNo.1) RESPONDENTS/: (Plaintiff) (Defendant No.2) 1. 2. 3. Smt. Shakuntala Sinha, wife of Shri Ashok Sinha, aged about 39 years, resident of Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, presently residing at Beside State Bank, Sadar Bazar, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) acting in the premises through her power of attorney holder Shri Ashok Sinha, son of Shri Nagendra •Sinha, aged about 49 years, residentof Sadar Bazar, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) Versus Smt. Vidyawati Singh, widow of Late Budh Singh, aged about 72 years, resident ofCivil Lines, Raipur (CG) Raj Kishore Singh, son of Late Budh Singh, aged about 39 years, resident of Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Distt. Raipur. (Defendant No.3) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. B.P. Sharmawith Mr. VivekChopda, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinhawith Mr. T.Arif, counsel for respondent No.1 on memo. Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counselfor respondent No.2 on memo. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent No.3. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (29-7-2010) 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned dated 8-7-2010 passed by the 9 Additional District Judge (F.T.C.),Raipur inCivilSuitNo.2A/2005. 2. Learned counsel for the petitionersubmits thaton 18-11-2009 again opportunity of adducing evidence was g'ven tothe plaintiff and after closing of the case of the plaintiff, on accoiint of necessity to examine the witnesses the petitioner herein has filed application for examinationof four witnesses which was finally dismissed vide order dated 8-7-2010. t'llllilBmi'BR' ^ "-^. ^ 'i;^' <;s'1 . Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner FterSn is ready to bring herwjtnessesforexamination withoutany assistanceof the Court. 3. On the other hand, learnedcounselappearing on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 vehemently oppose the petition and submit that ample ppportunity has been provided to thepetitioner herein/defendantNo.1 to adduce evidence, but defendant No.1 has failed to examine her witnesses and after closing of opportunity to adduce evidence the petitioner herein has filed such vexatious application with aview to delay the trial. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 further submit that the petitioner herein has not filed any list of witnesses as required under Order 16 Rule 1 ofthe C.P.C.and, fherefore, withoutanysufficientcause the petitioner herein cannot be permitted toadd or amend any list of witnesses. 4. On 18-11-2009 thepetitionerherein was represented by Mr. R.K. Shrivastava, Advocate, on memo, not on Vakalatnama to proceed with the case and on that daythe plaintiff was re-examined & re-cross- examined. Thereafter, on 30-11-2009 the petitioner herein has filed application for examination ofthe aforesaid four witnesses and for issuance of summons which was finally dismissed vide order dated 8-7- 2010. Definitely, on 18-11-2009 the plaintiff has re-examined herself. Therefore, opportunity to rebutthe evidence of the plaintiff was not only just butnecessary. As already submitted by learned Gounsel for the petitioner, the petitioner herein is ready to produce the witnesses without taking any assistanceof the Court. In such cireumstances, even the petitioner is not required to file the list of witnesses as required under Rule 1 of Order 16 of the C.P.C. or jn alternative under Rule 1 (3)of Order 16of the C.P.C. and the party may examine any witness whose name does not find place in the list of withesses by producing the said witness without assistanceof the Court in terms of RulelA of Order 16 of the C.P.C. 5. While dealing with the question of mentioning names in thelist in terms of Order 16 Rule1 of the C.P.C. for the purpose of examination ofwitnesses even without assistance of the Court the Apex Court in the matter of Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan and others (AIR 1983 SC925) has held that list for examinationof the witnesses is necessarywhen the partyseeks a.ssistanceof the Court for issuance of summons, butifthe party himself o "i;iiirt7miM^H—Twa"ag!itin)jB«itiM^8^^^B produces the witnesses without any assistance ofthe Court then it is not required to file such list and the party is competent to examine those witnesses intermsof Rule 1A of Order 16 ofthe C.P.C. 6. In the present case, the petitioner herein is ready to produce and examine her witnesses without any assistance of the Court. Considering the prder dated 18-11-2009, the petitioner herein is entitledto adduce her evidenceand rebut after the evidence of the pteintiff. While dismissing the application and prayer of the petitioner herein the Court below has committed illegality. Consequently, the order dated 8-7-2010 isnot sustainable under the law. 7. The petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 8-7-2010 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur in Civil Suit No.2A/2005 is hereby set aside. The Court below shall examine th^ aforesaid four witnesses produGed by the petitioner herein after giving full opportunity to such witnesses. No order as to costs. 8. I.A.No.1 stands disposedof. Soma Sd;- ^.T. Sbari»a Judge BSllIIIi'IE1; lildlalliflliidfiijniamii