1 WP 7699/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7699 OF 2010 Harishchandra R. Yadav .. Petitioner V/s The Municipal Corporation of the City of Navi Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Rajesh S. Datar for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 7TH DECEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 12th August 2010 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner (plaintiff) for summoning the Sub- Divisional Officer, Thane as a witness. 3. The application was given after the recording of the evidence had commenced and after the plaintiff had examined himself. 4. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 Order XVI of the Code of Civil 2 WP 7699/10 Procedure (for short “the CPC”) provides that on or before such date as the Court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 1 provides that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. Rule 1-A of Order XVI of the CPC permits a party, subject to the provisions of Rule 1(3) to bring any witness without applying for summons. 5. Ordinarily, a party to a suit is required to furnish to the Court list of witnesses on a date to be fixed by the Court which under sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 Order XVI shall not be later than fifteen days of the date on which the issues are settled. A party to a suit is thus required to furnish list of witnesses that it wants to examine within fifteen days of the settlement of the issues. sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 confers a power on the Court to permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or 3 WP 7699/10 otherwise, other than those whose names appear in the list of witnesses given under sub-rule (1), if it shows sufficient cause for omission to mention the name in the said list (furnished under sub-rule (1)). The permission to summon a witness not mentioned in the list of witnesses furnished under sub-rule (1) can be exercised by the Court only if the party applying shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the list. In the present case, admittedly list of witnesses was not furnished by the petitioner. In the application for witness summons, he had not given any reason for omission to file list of witnesses and/or for not mentioning the name of Sub-Divisional Officer as a witness in the list of witnesses which was required to be filed by him. In the absence of a sufficient cause, the Court was justified in rejecting the application for issuance of witness summons to the Sub-Divisional Officer. 4. For these reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)