Civil Revision No. 5670 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5670 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 16.09.2011 Ms/ Sat Pal Singh and brothers ....... Petitioner Versus M/s Kamboj Agro Mills (Pvt.), Ltd. and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Surinder Pal Singh Tinna, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This revision petition, brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff, seeks quashing of order dated 18.08.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Moga, whereby the application of the petitioner for summoning a clerk of Market Committee, Dharamkot as its witness has been dismissed. The petitioner is the plaintiff before learned trial court. It has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,93,652.44 paise against the respondents. The evidence of the plaintiff is still not over. Learned trial court has declined to accept this assistance to the plaintiff vide the impugned order. I have heard Mr.S.P.S. Tina, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Civil Revision No. 5670 of 2011 --2-- Noticing that issues were framed on 16.07.2010 and that the plaintiff was called upon to comply with the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also to file the process fee, diet money and list of witnesses within 15 days, it is observed that it did not comply with those directions. It is further mentioned that as many as eight opportunities had already been availed by the plaintiff to lead its entire evidence and the evidence is being brought at own responsibility. Observing that in view of the order dated 16.07.2010 whereby the evidence was ordered to be brought at own responsibility, the plaintiff is not entitled to any assistance of the court for the purpose of summoning of witness. It has to be kept in mind that the witness sought to be summoned is an official witness. He is not a witness, who could be asked to be brought by the plaintiff with him. If the plaintiff failed to furnish the list of witnesses or process fee and diet money, then learned trial court could have burdened it with costs. Instead of doing so, the application has been dismissed straightaway. When the evidence of the plaintiff was still going on, the plaintiff was entitled to seek assistance of the court in summoning the official witness over whom it had no power to call to the court. At least, the court could have issued dasti summons for the witness. It was also not done. Civil Revision No. 5670 of 2011 --3-- Under these circumstances, I find the order of learned trial court to be unjustified. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed. The witness is ordered to be summoned for the next date for which adequate opportunity should be given to the plaintiff with the facility of dasti summons of the witness also. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 16.09.2011 dinesh