CRP 216/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HN SARMA Heard Mr. AK Goswami, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner. The supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitutio n of India is sought to be exercised challenging the order dated 30.3.09 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 23/07. In the aforesaid suit, the present petitioner as defendant submitted the affidav it-in-chief on 17.11.08 and on that date the plaintiff prayed for adjournment of the cross-examination of the DW 1 on the ground of ailment of the learned couns el conducting the case. The defendant also by filing an application No. 1933/08 sought direction of the court to take steps for summoning two more witnesses aft er cross-examination of the DW 1. The learned trial court vide impugned order da ted 30.3.09 though allowed the adjournment for cross-examination of the DW.1, r ejected the prayer of the defendant/petitioner for summoning the witnesses as me ntioned in the petition. Under the provision of Order 16 Rule 1 (i) CPC, the plaintiff is to submit the l ist of witness within a period of 15 days for their attendance in the court. Adm ittedly, that steps have not been taken by the defendant and accordingly by invo king order 16 Rule 1 (3), court may exercise its discretion to call summons o r otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referr ed to in sub-rule (1) provided such party shows sufficient cause for the omissio n to mention the name of such witness in the said list. In the instant case, how ever, no list of witness was submitted by the plaintiff. Mr. Goswami submits th at from the impugned order it appears that the learned trial court did not incli ne to exercise his discretion as contained in Sub-Rule 3 and rejected the prayer of the plaintiff. From the tenor of the order it appears that the learned trial court has not allowed the defendant to adduce further evidence even without iss uing summon, offending thereby the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1(A) CPC. The aforesaid submission of Mr. Goswami has sufficient force. Order 16 Rule 1 (A) provides that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of R ule 1, any party to the suit may, without applying for summons under Rule 1, bri ng any witness to give evidence or to produce documents. That right of the parti es cannot be taken away by the court and such right is vested upon the party who wants to produce and examine the witness without taking aid of the court provid ed them other relevant provisions of the CPC are complied with. In that view of the matter, this revision petition stands disposed of with the direction that t he impugned order should not be interpreted or construed negating the right of the petitioner as contained in the provision of Order 16 Rule 1 (A) of the CPC and the petitioner would be entitled to exercise the said right, but subject to other relevant provisions of the CPC. With this observation and direction, this revision petition stands disposed of.