HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2773 of 2008 ORDER: The order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in I.A.No. 43 of 2008 in O.S.No. 84 of 2003 dated 01.07.2008, is under challenge in this revision petition. I.A.No. 43 of 2008 was filed under Order XVI Rule 5 CPC to summon the scribe of the promissory note. The petitioner herein is the first defendant in the suit. The second respondent herein, the widow of the deceased - first respondent, opposed the said application contending that the petitioner - first defendant had not arrayed the scribe as one among those in the list of witnesses submitted along with the written statement. The Court below rejected the application on the sole ground that, as the scribe was not among those in the list of witnesses, no summons could be issued; it was for the petitioner - first defendant to get the witnesses examined; and not get them summoned through Court. Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that summoning of a witness, not included in the list of witnesses, is permissible. In support of his contention, Learned Counsel would rely on a judgment of this Court in Addagatla Narender v. Some Vijayalakshmi[1]. Sri T.C.Krishnan, Learned Counsel for the respondents, would contend that the application itself is not maintainable as the power to summon a witness is under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC and not under Order XVI Rule 5 CPC. Learned Counsel would submit that the second respondent is the widow of the deceased – first respondent, and the petitioner, having borrowed money from her husband in the year 2000, was filing one application after another to drag on proceedings. I n Addagatla Narender1 this Court, relying on a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Brij Mohangupta v. Premchand Jain2, held that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantial justice; permitting all admissible evidence to be let in was the general rule; rejection thereof, under specified circumstances, the exception; a liberal approach should be adopted in favour of substantial justice being done; and a witness can be summoned even though he does not find mention in the list of witnesses submitted along with the written statement. The Court below has not rejected the application, in I.A.No. 43 of 2008, on the ground that it was filed under Order XVI Rule 5 CPC and not under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. In any event it is not in dispute that the Court has power to summon a witness under Order XVI Rule 5 CPC. I see no reason, therefore, to reject the application on this ground. The petitioner - first defendant herein seeks to have the scribe summoned as a witness in support of his plea that the promissory note is fabricated. Whether or not this plea is true is a matter which the Court below shall adjudicate after trial. In the light of such a plea, a request for examination of the scribe as a witness cannot be faulted. Ordinarily this Court would have set aside the Order under Revision, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The submission of Sri T.C.Krishnan, Learned Counsel for the respondents, that the endeavour of the petitioner - first defendant is only to drag on proceedings cannot be ignored. In such circumstances, and as the application, to have the scribe summoned as a witness, was filed nearly five years after the suit was filed in the year 2003, I consider it appropriate to allow the application in I.A.No. 43 of 2008 on condition that the petitioner - first defendant deposits Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to the credit of the Suit within two weeks from today. On such deposit, the Court below shall permit the second respondent to withdraw the said amount. The Court below shall issue summons to the scribe, and have his examination completed, within a period of three months and, thereafter, proceed to adjudicate the suit in accordance with law. It is made clear that, in case the said sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) is not deposited, or if the Court below is satisfied that the petitioner - first defendant is dragging on proceedings indefinitely, it is open to the Court below to take such steps, as may be required, for expeditious disposal of the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:01-07-2010 usd [1] 2006(3) ALT 422 2 1993 MPLJ 183 (DB)