1. This petition is preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the trial Court passed on 14.2.2012 below Exh.53 in Regular Civil Suit No.97 of 2008 being before Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar.
2. The petitioner herein is the original defendant and the respondents original plaintiff. They shall be addressed as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of convenience. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.97 of 2008 praying for receiving the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property and for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1300/- per month and for other ancillary reliefs. The written statement came to be filed by the defendant. In yet another Civil Suit, which was preferred before Civil Judge(SD), Surendranagar being 12 of 1993. The plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a settlement agreement for fixing standard rent preferred by the defendant.
3. It is the say of the defendant that the plaintiff witness was summoned being Manager of Dena Bank, who submitted some of the documents without deposing anything with regard to those documents and they pertain to Court proceedings being Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2008 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar. It appears that documents pertain to Mahalaxmi Readymade Store and Krishnasinh Narendrasinh Vaghela is a proprietor of this Readymade store. It is the say of the defendant that Mahalaxmi Readymade Store belongs to the present defendant. The objection was raised for exhibiting these documents and cross-examination of the witnesses was sought by an application Exh.53, which was decided on 14.2.2012 and, therefore this petition.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhavi Nanavati appearing for the petitioner strongly urged this Court that the trial Court has disregarded the provision of Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure while rejecting such request. The defendant had no knowledge of these documents and, therefore, without verifying the veracity of documents and unless an opportunity of cross-examination is given, the question of proprietor right of Mahalaxmi Readymade Store remains an ambiguity. It is the say of the defendant that he is the proprietor of Mahalaxmi Readymade Store and has appointed Krishnasinh Narendrasinh Vaghela to look after his business. There is no sub-letting so far. The registration has been done under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and the renewal has been made for the period from 1994 to 2013.
5. On issuance of the notice, learned advocate for the the respondents (plaintiff) filed affidavit-in-reply and objected to entertainment of this petition. It is contended by the deponent of affidavit that the petition is not maintainable. It is urged that considering the documents produced by the Manager of Dena Bank, the plaintiff has made out a ground for eviction. It is urged that when the documents were sought to be produced and they were allowed to be exhibited, no objection has been raised by the defendant, knowing fully well that such documents had come from the proper custody of the Manager of the Bank and they can be exhibited at a later date. To recall the Manager it has been urged that prayer would not fall under the purview of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also further urged that the application is totally misconceived and barred by the Indian Evidence Act as he was a production witness and no cross-examination can be done. It is also further urged that order 16 makes out a well marked distinction of two types of summons, one for giving evidence and another for production of documents. The application given by the plaintiff vide Exh.27 under Order 16 Rule 6 and therefore, the same was for the production of the documents and not for the purpose of giving evidence. He further urged that the provision of Order 18 Rule 17 pertains to recalling of a witness, who has given his deposition on oath by way of examination-in-chief and whose cross-examination has taken place if the Court so desires. But, the same would not be available for the person, who has been called only as a production witness under Order 16 Rule 5. He urged, therefore, that learned Judge has committed no error in denying cross-examination of the said witness as a well marked distinction between witness for deposition and production witness is made out. It is further urged that the defendant would have its own turn to and lead evidence and, therefore, also this application is prematured.
6. On thus having considered the submissions of both the sides prior to adverting the facts on record, it shall be appropriate to examine the relevant provisions under the law.
Order 17 speaks of the adjournment and this issues does not concern. The respondents herein the original plaintiffs have wrongly quoted Order 17. It is Order 16 which shall apply having heading of “summons of attendance and witnesses”. Order XVI Rules 5,6 and 7.
“ 5. Time, place and purpose of attendance to be specified in summons.- Every summons for the attendance of a person to give evidence or to produce a document shall specify the time and place at which he is required to attend, and also whether his attendance is required for the purpose of giving evidence or to produce a document, or for both purposes; and any particular document, which the person summoned is called on to produce, shall be described in the summons with reasonable accuracy.
6. Summons to produce document.- Any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to given evidence, and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.
7. Power to require persons present in Court to give evidence or produce document.- Any person present in Court may be required by the Court to give evidence or to produce any document then and there in his possession or power.
7A. Summons given for service.-(1) The Court may, on the application of any party for the issue of a summons for the attendance of any person, permit such party to effect service of such summons on such person and shall, in such a case, deliver the summons to such party for service.
(2) The service of such summons shall be effected by or on behalf of such party by delivering or tendering to the witness personally a copy thereof signed by the Judge or such officer of the Court as he may appoint in this behalf and sealed with the seal of the Court.
(3) The provisions of rules 16 and 18 of Order V shall apply to a summons personally served under this rule as if the person effecting service were a serving officer.
(4) If such summons, when tendered, is refused or if the person served refuses to sign and acknowledgment of service or for any reason such summons cannot be served personally, the Court shall, on the application of the party, re-issue such summons to be served by the Court in the same manner as a summons to a defendant.
(5) Where a summons is served by a party under this rule, the party shall not be required to pay the fees otherwise chargeable for the service of summons. “
7. The person who is summoned to produce a document without being summoned to give evidence is entitled to produce a document without even being personally present and such production would be deemed to be in due compliance of the summons issued by the Court requiring production of document. Order 16 Rule 7 also permits the Court to insist any person who is present before the Court either for giving evidence or to produce any document then and there only.
8. It is required to be noted at the stage when the summons is to be issued, the Court would need to specify in the summons itself whether it is for the attendance of a person to give evidence or to produce the document. Along with that, it is also required to specify the time and place at which the person is required to attend and whether such summons is for both the purposes, giving evidence and to produce document, shall need to be described in the summons itself with reasonable accuracy. Appendix B of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the formate for this purpose Form No.,13 under the heading of ‘summons to witness (O.XVI. Rule 1,5) makes it extremely clear that summons itself.
9. Question in the instant case, arises on account of the contents of the documents produced by the Manager of Dena Bank who was summoned as a production witness. From the beginning a clear request was made by the plaintiffs who was seeking to produce the documents, which were indicating that the defendants ( plaintiff herein) has already sub-let the property. The person, who has been sub-let had requested for the loan amount from the Bank and the registration is also done under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act reflecting the name of Krishnasinh Narendrasinh Vaghela to whom it is alleged that the petitioner herein has sub-let the property. On having realised this fact, request was made by the present petitioner for cross-examination of the very witness and that has been denied by the Court. Impugned order which is under challenge before this Court raises various grounds mentioned thereunder.
10. It would be apt to make a mention at this stage that the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not required to interfere with the order of the trial Court unless there is a patent illegality made out. In the instant case neither while discussing the factual details any mistake appears to have been committed nor has there been any illegality, which would lead to serious prejudice to either side requiring interference.
11. If one looks at that the order of the trial Court also, it has relied upon the provision of Order 18 Rule 17, which entitles the Court to recall the witness and on its own if it deems fit to so do it for putting certain questions to the witness. It has been time and again held that recalling witness is not permissible for filling up a lacuna and the parties cannot request for re-examination of the witness by recalling him under this provision. However, it is the subjective satisfaction of the Court, which is insisted upon for this very purpose.
12. In the instant case, the Court, on its own, has not deemed it fit to recall the witness. Secondly, when the witness was a production witness, there is no question of putting any questions to him. Therefore, on neither of the grounds, invocation of Order 18 Rule 17 can be insisted upon. Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act also states that if witness is summoned for production of documents, he does not become a witness by mere fact that he produced those documents and cannot be cross-examined unless he is called as a witness. Admittedly, in the instant case, person has been called as a production witness and not as a witness although nothing prevents the petitioner herein to call the concerned witness as his own witness. If it can satisfy the Court when his own turn begins. However, to insist upon the production witness to be examined for the purpose of cross-examination at the stage when the documents are already exhibited is not to be stamped with approval. And, as noted, when his summons was for the purpose of production and when at no point of time there was any objection raised either when he was summoned or subsequently when he produced and Court exhibited the documents. No interference at this stage is necessary. The Court has not committed any error in holding that application does not fall under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil SCA/4019/2012 10/10 JUDGMENT Procedure and it is not tenable under the law.
The petition stands dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged.
sudhir (Ms.Sonia Gokani, J.)