HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1447 and 1450 of 2008 Dated : 17.06.2010 Between : The Editor, Eenadu Daily & others ….. Petitioners a n d Gadiraju Appalaraju ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1447 and 1450 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: As both the revision petitions arise out of the interlocutory orders passed in the same suit and are intimately interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common order. Heard Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and Sri C.S.N.Raju, learned counsel representing Sri R.V.Narasimha Raju, learned counsel for the respondent. In O.S.No.83 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.2045 of 2007 to summon the Deputy Executive Engineer, Drainage Sub-Division, Bhimavaram, to produce the documents specified therein on the ground that the notices issued by the authorities alleging illegal encroachments and illegal constructions will be relevant for the adjudication of the suit for defamation against a news item published in Eenadu Daily. It was claimed that certified copies of the notices will not be issued by the authorities and the Senior Civil Judge found some force in the contentions of the revision petitioners and held that the revision petitioners made out sufficient grounds in support of the request for summoning the witness. Thereafter, the witness, when attempted to be served with a notice to produce documents and to give evidence by process served through Court, was claimed to have intentionally refused to receive the summons or to attend the Court. Consequently, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.3001 of 2007 to re- open their evidence, which was closed due to absence of representation on the date of hearing due to the delayed arrival of the employee of the revision petitioners at the Court, and I.A.No.3002 of 2007 to issue a proclamation to the witness requiring him to attend the Court and give evidence on the date fixed by the Court and in default to issue a warrant to the witness. The trial Court by order dated 04.02.2008 dismissed I.A.No.3001 of 2007 noting the sequence of events in the suit and opining that the revision petitioners were not taking any serious interest in the matter and were trying to drag on the matter on some pretext or the other. Observing that sufficient and ample opportunity was given to the revision petitioners, who were not diligent, the trial Court dismissed the petition to re-open their evidence. In I.A.No.3002 of 2007, the trial Court also passed a similar order of dismissal considering the petition to be infructuous in view of the orders passed in I.A.No.3001 of 2007. The revision petitioners challenged the said order contending that the trial Court itself opined the evidence of the Deputy Executive Engineer concerned to be relevant and issued summons to him and it could not have refused to take further steps to secure his presence and evidence and could not have closed the evidence of revision petitioners abruptly. It is seen from the order in I.A.No.2045 of 2007, which order has become final, that the news item in question which led to filing of suit for defamation was concerning some unauthorized and illegal encroachments and constructions made in government properties. The authorities concerned were claimed to have issued notices in this regard to the plaintiff and such notices were considered by the trial Court itself to be relevant for adjudication of the nature of the publication made. When once the trial Court has decided that a witness has to be summoned to give evidence and to produce documents, the trial Court is also obliged to extend all permissible assistance to the party in securing the presence of the witness for such a purpose in the light of various provisions of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not as though the revision petitioners were alone in default in this regard and it is not factually in dispute that the witness, who was attempted to be served with summons through the process of the Court, neither accepted the summons nor attended the Court on the date fixed for hearing. If so, the further procedure to be adopted by the Court as laid down in Rule 10 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to have been followed by the trial Court when the trial Court itself believed the evidence and production of documents to be material and if it has no reason to believe the absence of the witness to be with any lawful excuse. The revision petitioners made the request to the trial Court to re-open the evidence and take further steps under Order XVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the petitioner’s evidence was closed on 30.11.2007, they filed the petitions on 03.12.2007 and such prompt approach to the trial Court could not have been considered to be disclosing either absence of any serious interest or any attempt to drag on the proceedings without any justification. The fact that the suit was of the year 2000 and was coming on since long for trial appears to have persuaded the trial Court to reject the request of the petitioners. The rules of procedure have been intended to be handmaids of justice and cannot be used to punish the parties for any technical lapses. Under the circumstances, both the orders under revision have to be reversed but in view of the lapse of time between the original attempt to serve summons on the witness, his default and the present stage, it might be in the interests of justice to again permit the petitioners to take summons to the witness through the Court and in the event of any default by the witness, to permit them to request the trial Court to pursue further procedure under Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure to secure the presence of the witness for giving evidence and producing the documents. Therefore, both the civil revision petitions are allowed without costs and the orders in I.A.No.3001 of 2007 and 3002 of 2007 in O.S.No.83 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram, dated 04.02.2008, are set aside and both the revision petitions are allowed. However, the revision petitioners shall in the first instance take steps through the Court to serve summons on the proposed witness to attend on a date to be fixed by the Court to give evidence and to produce the required documents and only in case of default by the witness again, they are at liberty to request the trial Court to proceed further under Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure to secure the presence of the witness for giving evidence and to produce documents. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th June, 2010 SUR