Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4017 MP
Judgement Date : 23 March, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 23rd OF MARCH, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 3413 of 2018
Between:-
NIHAR RANJAN ROY S/O PRAFULLA ROY , AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: COULTIVATOR
BABRI, THE. SEONI MALVA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UMESH TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. ANOKHILAL S/O DHANPA SINGH YADUVANSHI ,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, BABRI THE. SEONI
MALWA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
COLLECTOR DISTT-HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R. K. PANDEY, ADVOCATE )
This petition has come up for hearing on this day and the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 12.4.2018 contained in Annexure P/4. Petitioner has filed an application under Order 16 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, for issuing summons to witnesses.
It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that plaintiff/petitioner is ready to bear the expenses of witnesses. Said witnesses are not coming up on efforts of plaintiff/petitioner, therefore, he had filed an application for issuance of summons. Trial court has rejected the application on the ground that on three occasions time has been granted to plaintiff/petitioner to produce the witnesses and plaintiff is delaying the trial. In this circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that adequate reason has been given in the application. He relied on judgment reported in Gopal Das Renwal vs. Smt. Deepika Jain, 2010 (1) M.P.L.J 594, wherein it has been held that if adequate reasons have been assigned Signature SAN Not Verified based upon the inability of plaintiff to keep the witnesses present for cross- Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2022.03.24 examination, therefore, plaintiff was justified in seeking assistance of the Court for 17:38:38 IST
issuance of summons.
Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner. It is submitted by him that after 11.7.2017 case was fixed on 2.5.2018 and on said date also witnesses were not produced for examination.
In view of same, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Plaintiff/petitioner is trying to delay the trial, therefore, his application has rightly been dismissed by the trial court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the Division Bench order passed in the case of Gopal Das Renwal (supra) and the fact that petitioner has mentioned reasons in his application for issuance of summons to witnesses, therefore, Misc. Petition filed by petitioner is allowed. Order dated 12.4.2018 (Annexure P/1) is set aside.
Trial court is directed to issue summons to witnesses namely, Radhelal, Ravishanker, Ramkishore, Gendalal Yaduvanshi, Kusumbai and Amar Singh and fix a date for their examination.
With the aforesaid direction, Misc. Petition stands allowed and disposed off.
C.C as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
mms
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
MONSI M SIMON
Date: 2022.03.24
17:38:38 IST
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!