R. Ramalingam, Etc. vs P.R. Thakur, Etc.
1982 Latest Caselaw 74 Del

JUDGMENT

N.N. Goswami, J.

(1) Respondent No. 2 had filed claim against respdts. 3, 4 and petitioner (Tns. Co.). Matter was adjourned from time to time for compromise. Finally Tribunal asked Administrative Officer (A.0.) of Ins. Co. to appear before it with compromise records. On 25-2-82, Counsel of Ins Co. told Court that he had communicated order of the Tribunal to Dy. Managec of Ins. Co, but he was not present. The Tribunal issued notice under 0. 16 R. 12. Cpg to Deputy Manager for 28-1-82. He challenged this by petition u/Art. 227.

(2) It was held, Order 16 Rule 12 provides for the enforcement of the summons issued to a witness to attend the court or to produce documents and for punishing disobedience of the order. There is no scope for initiating contempt proceedings for the failure to carry out such orders. This rule in terms talks of a witness and not the party. If a party deliberately or otherwise chooses not to appear, the resort cannot be had to this rule. In Civil matters appearance of Counsel is enough and parties cannot be directed to appear under this rule. Tribunal was not justified in calling for the compromise mise file as communication between Counsel Ins. Co. privileged.