[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj vs Pushkar on 13 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4580
1 MP-793-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 793 of 2026
MANOJ AND OTHERS
Versus
PUSHKAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Bharat Mehta - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed
assailing the order impugned order dated 27.01.2026 whereby an application
under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC has been allowed for examining witness Nitin
Soni.
2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs/respondents has filed s suit
RCSA 12/2025 against the petitioners/defendants before the learned trial Court
for relief of declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the house no.107
situated at Sadar Bazar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court
towards the Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC submits that after settlement of issues within
a particular period of 15 days, list of witnesses is to be filed by the concerned
party. In the present case, no such list of witnesses was filed by the plaintiffs and
on 16.12.2025 an application under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC was filed for
permission to examine Ghanshyam Mangal and that was allowed on the same day.
On 17.12.2025, the witness was not present, but plaintiffs declared as evident
from the order sheet dated 17.12.2025 that they do not want to examine any other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4580
2 MP-793-2026
witness. On 08.01.2026 it was stated by the plaintiffs that earlier they have prayed
for permission to examine Ghanshyam Mangal, but in the present circumstances,
they do not want to examine Ghanshyam Mangal and want to examine Pushkar
Soni in place of Ghanshyam Mangal and that request was acceded to and the
statement of Pushkar Soni was recorded on 21.01.2026. Thereafter, on
24.01.2026 further an application under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC was filed that
name of Nitin Soni S/o Mohanlal Soni r/o Pachore was left to be mentioned in the
list of witnesses due to inadvertence, therefore, plaintiffs be permitted to examine
the aforesaid witness. This application was opposed by the defendants, but the
same was allowed by the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated
27.01.2026.
3.1 Inviting attention of the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel
submits that in the application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC for
examination of Nitin Soni, no reasons were assigned, his name was not mentioned
in the list of witnesses. This witness could not have been allowed to be examined
unless sufficient and cogent reasons were given by the plaintiffs/respondents in
the application. On these submissions, learned counsel contends that the impugned
order is malafide and it has been allowed to give opportunity to the plaintiffs to
fill up the lacuna which have appeared in the cross examination of their witnesses.
Hence, prays for allowing the petition and setting aside the impugned order.
4. Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners and peruse the record.
5. From perusal of the record it is apparent that no list of witnesses
appears to have been filed by the plaintiffs after framing of the issues as per
requirement of Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC. On earlier two occasions, two witnesses
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4580
3 MP-793-2026
were allowed to be examined, but only Pushkar Soni was examined and on
17.12.2025 it was declared that no witnesses will be going to be examined on
behalf of the plaintiffs, but despite that again application Under Order 16 Rule 1
of CPC was filed that too without any reason for what purpose this witness is to
be examined and why his name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. In such
a scenario, the contention raised on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners
appears to be having substance. This process cannot go on for infinite period at
the whims of either Court below or plaintiffs or any other party giving go bye to
the provisions contained in Civil Procedure Code.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned order passed by the
Court below is not in accordance with law hence require interference.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.01.2026
permitting Nitin Soni to be examined as a witness is hereby set aside. The trial
Court is advised to go through the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC and
abide by the provisions in letter and spirit in future.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
