Relying on Order XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order, Ext.P3 in this original petition. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.712/2006 before the Additional Munsiff Court, Nedumangad. The suit was one for partition. For the purpose of disposal of this petition, it is not necessary to go to the facts of the case in detail.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 04.11.2014. When it was posted for defence evidence, the defendants submitted that they have no evidence to adduce. Subsequently, the 15th defendant produced certain documents in favour of other defendants. The petitioner would say that there was no supporting averment in the written statement. It is therefore stated that the documents produced are procured through unlawful means. It is stated that the petitioner was not put on guard regarding the defence now set up by the contesting defendants by the production of documents and therefore it becomes necessary to re-open the evidence of the plaintiff to examine the 9th, 22nd and 28th defendants. That required the petitioner to file Ext.P2 petition. The court below dismissed that petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the court below was unjustified in its approach because as per Order XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after the amendment of 1976, the court is empowered to summon any party to the suit as witness.
5. Even now the party to the suit may not be able to summon another party to the suit as witness. Probably, the court below misunderstood the petitioner in the sense that it is on the compulsion on the part of the petitioner that the other parties have been summoned as witnesses. There can be no doubt that Order XVI Rule 14 CPC is a provision which enables the court concerned to call any person including a party to the suit as witness.
If a person refrains from giving evidence, as rightly noticed by the court below, consequences follow. Mere production of documents will not constitute evidence. They have to be produced in accordance with law. Mere production of document by itself is not a ground to consider the petition on merits as claimed by the petitioner. As rightly noticed by the court below, if no evidence is adduced by the person concerned, it is open to the court below to draw adverse inference against that person. This Court finds no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order impugned.
This original petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp