THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2 OF 2014 DATED 24TH OCTOBER, 2014 Between:
Pokala Jayalaxmi … Petitioner and K. Sudharshan and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2 OF 2014 O R D E R The plaintiff in O.S. No.1542 of 2006 on the file of the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, is the petitioner. She is aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the trial Court in I.A. No.1156 of 2013 filed by her in the said suit. This IA was filed under Order 16 Rule 15 r/w Section 151 CPC praying that the trial Court summon the Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, JPN Road, Warangal; the Branch Manager, ING Vysya Bank, Chowrastha, Warangal; and the Branch Manager, Bank of India, JPN Road, Warangal, for examining them in connection with the nomination forms and FDRs allegedly relating to late Ravva Chandikamba. By the order under revision, the trial Court dismissed the I.A.
Despite service of notice, the respondents did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through counsel.
The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit, O.S. No.1542 of 2006, for a declaration that she was the legal heir of late Ravva Chandikamba in the status of an adopted daughter. According to her, during her life time, Ravva Chandikamba deposited sums of money with various banks in Warangal under fixed deposits and named the son of the petitioner/plaintiff, Pokala Venugopal, as the nominee, as he was her grandson. It is in the context of these alleged FDRs and nominations that the petitioner/plaintiff wanted to summon and examine the Branch Managers of the banks.
It is however an admitted fact that these Branch Managers were not named in the original list of witnesses filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. Though the petitioner/plaintiff filed the subject I.A. under Order 16 Rule 15 CPC, the correct provision which would have application is Order 16 Rule 1(3) CPC as the Branch Managers were admittedly not shown in the original list of witnesses filed under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC. Once the plaintiff failed to name these witnesses in the original list of witnesses, Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC vests the trial Court with the discretion to either permit or refuse summoning of these new witnesses. This is clear from the fact that the trial Court is required to record reasons as to why it is permitting the party to call a new witness. It is therefore incorrect to contend that the petitioner/plaintiff was entitled as a matter of course to summon any witness at any stage of the suit.
Perusal of the order under revision reflects that no material whatsoever was placed before the trial Court to substantiate the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff as to the alleged FDRs and nomination forms said to have been executed by late Ravva Chandikamba. In effect, the I.A. was an obvious after-thought and was a shot in the dark to gather evidence in support of the suit claim. Had the petitioner/plaintiff obtained certified copies of these documents from the banks in question and then moved the application, its fate may have been otherwise. As matter stood, no evidence was placed before the trial Court warranting exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 16 Rule 1(3) CPC.
Sri K. Giridhar Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in CHEKKA KRISHNA
[1]
PRASAD V/s. KOTHA APPA RAO . Perusal thereof reflects that the said judgment turned upon the provisions of Order 16 Rule 6 CPC, which deals with issuance of summons to produce a document without asking the person so summoned to give evidence. In that context, it was held that relevance or validity of the document could not be scrutinized at the time of summoning it. This decision has no application to the case on hand as the subject I.A. was not filed under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC for mere production of the documents but for summoning the Branch Managers of the three banks so as to examine them.
In the totality of the above circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order under revision and the same is confirmed. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
24TH OCTOBER, 2014 PGS
[1] 1998(2) ALT 45
------------------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J