The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 04/10/2023 passed by the Addl City Civil and Sessions Judge rejecting the application dated 04/10/2023, and consequently allow the application, and permit the petitioners to examine Mr. Jyotiranjan Pattanaik as a witness. The Court observed that the trial Court has to examine as to whether the witness summons is served on the witness and record its satisfaction in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 and thereafter the trial Court is required to examine as to whether a proclamation needs to be issued against the said witness.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners-defendants were permitted to take out witness summons to one Sri. Jyothiranjan Pattanaik and accordingly summons was served on the said witness. Even after the service of witness summons, the said person has failed to appear before the trial Court. Since the evidence of said witness is absolutely necessary, the petitioners-defendants filed an application under Order XVI Rule 10(2) of CPC praying to issue proclamation against the said witness Sri. Jyothiranjan Pattanaik. The trial Court instead of considering the said application in terms of Order XVI Rule 10 of CPC, only on the ground that the defendants had filed the application just to delay the proceedings, rejected the application. Hence, the present petition.
Contention of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the trial Court must consider the application in terms of Rule 10 of Order XVI of CPC and to examine as to whether a proclamation needs to be issued against the said witness on whom witness summons has been served.
Contention of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent did not dispute that the trial Court was required to consider the application in question in terms of Rule 10 of Order XVI of CPC. Further, he prayed for an opportunity to file objections to the application before the trial Court.
The Court observed that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Order XVI Rule 10(2) of CPC and it needs reconsideration. The Court said that while considering the application, the trial Court is required to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 10 of Order XVI of CPC stated above. The trial Court has to examine as to whether the witness summons is served on the witness and record its satisfaction in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 and thereafter the trial Court is required to examine as to whether a proclamation needs to be issued against the said witness.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order requires to be set aside due to the failure of the trial Court to examine the application in terms of Rule 10 of Order XVI of CPC.
Case Title: Sirena Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v Naveen Kumar Vishwanath
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S.G. Pandit
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.22942 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Abhilash Vaidyanathan
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav G. K.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
