S.B.C.W.P. NO. 6648/2007-United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. District Judge, Sriganganagar DATE OF ORDER : 19/11/2008 1/4 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6648/2007 (United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. District Judge, Sriganganagar) DATE OF ORDER : 19/11/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.P.R.Sikka along with Mr.Sushil Bishnoi, for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Balia, for the respondent. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14/9/2007, whereby, the learned trial court rejected the application of the defendant Insurance Company under Order 16 Rule 3 CPC for summoning certain witnesses. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the application filed before the learned trial court at the stage when the defendant's evidence has started, the defendant had given complete list of 17 witnesses to be summoned through court process as they were relevant for the trial of the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent and even though their names were not filed in the list of witnesses under Order 16 Rule 1, in the interest of justice the court could extend the time in summoning these witnesses. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mange Ram vs. Brij Mohan & S.B.C.W.P. NO. 6648/2007-United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. District Judge, Sriganganagar DATE OF ORDER : 19/11/2008 2/4 Ors – AIR 1983 SC 925, decision of this Court in case of Kalu and another vs. Chhitar and others – AIR 1987 Rajasthan 206, and decision of Andhra Pradesh High in case of N.Balraju and another vs. G.Vidhyadhar – AIR 2004 AP 516. Learned counsel also relied upon the provisions of Section 30 and 148 of CPC. 3. On the side opposite, Mr. Vikas Balia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent plaintiff relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of Lalitha J. Rai vs. Aithappa Rai – (1995) 4 SCC 244 and submitted that the defendant Insurance Company having failed to file the list of witnesses within the stipulated time under Order 16 Rule 1 cannot seek indulgence of the Court at belated stage when the plaintiff's evidence is already over. Moreover, he submitted that no reasons worth the name have been given by the defendant Insurance Company for issuance of summons under Order 16 Rule 3 CPC and merely a list of witnesses has been produced in the said application. He, therefore, submitted that in accordance with the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the witnesses now cannot be summoned and trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the said application by the impugned order dated 14/9/2007. S.B.C.W.P. NO. 6648/2007-United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. District Judge, Sriganganagar DATE OF ORDER : 19/11/2008 3/4 4. Having heard learned counsels and after going through the judgments cited at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that defendant Insurance Company has failed to submit the list of witnesses within the stipulated time in accordance with Order 16 Rule 1 and has also not disclosed any reason for summoning these witnesses through summons to be issued by the trial court under Order 16 Rule 3 CPC. However, it appears to the Court that as far as witness no.2 – Surveyor Shri S.K.Pandey, witness no.10 – Mr.Madan Gopal, Superintendent of Police (Retd.) Proprietor of Gopal Detective Agency, witness no.13 – Jitendra Singh, Investigation Officer, P.S.Sadar, Sriganganagar and witness no.14 – Shri Tribhuwan Singh, Dy.S.P. (Retd.), P.S.Sadar, Sriganganagar, who have investigated into the case and are public authorities, they can be summoned by the court to advance the cause of justice subject to payment of reasonable cost by the defendant petitioner. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to trial court to summon the aforesaid four witnesses by issuance of summon as defendant's witnesses subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- to the plaintiff. The request of the defendant to summon S.B.C.W.P. NO. 6648/2007-United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. District Judge, Sriganganagar DATE OF ORDER : 19/11/2008 4/4 other witnesses is rejected and to that extent the order of learned trial court is upheld. 6. With aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.19 baweja/-