R. BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) -THIS Civil Order is directed against the Order No. 148 dated 14. 12. 91, passed by the learned Munsif, Purulia in Title Suit No. 30 of 1983, according the prayer of the defendants to issue summons upon the witnesses disclosed in the petition. ( 2 ) TO understand the contention, a few antecedent facts need be stated. The defendants did not put in any list of witnesses within the time stipulated by the Court for issuance of the summons. The list of such witnesses must be lodged with the Court within 15 days after the date on which the issues are settled. The defendant-petitioner to the reason best known to him failed to harvest the right, as adumbrated in order 16 and, thereafter, preferred an application for issuance of summons before the Court which was in se sin of the matter. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs in obedience to the provision of law resorted to Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to harvest success have resisted the prayer of the defendant seeking issuance of summons on the witness disclosed in the petition. ( 4 ) THE learned court below upon hearing the rival claims upheld the prayer for issuance of summons as it appears that Order 16 Rule 3 weighed with the learned court below when this application has been preferred. ( 5 ) MR. Bidyut Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has strenuously contended that the prayer for issuance of the summons as allowed by the learned court below has been passed contrary to Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lone provision available for summoning and attendance of witnesses where the assistance of the Court has been sought for to achieve the desired objective is only the Order 16 Rules 1 to 4. It is needless to say that a party to a suit has legal right to apply to a Court for a summon to a witness. The obligation to supply the list of witnesses within the time prescribed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 16 is in respect of witnesses to procure his presence where the assistance of the Court is necessary. The present case comes within the fold of Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure as distinct from Rule 1-A of the Code. The present case comes within the fold of Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure as distinct from Rule 1-A of the Code. He has relied on Mange Ram v. Brijmohan, AIR 1983 SC 925 to fortify his claim. On a close reading of the ruling under reference, it is palpable that Order 16 Rules 1 and 1a could be made applicable for which two different circumstances must exist. Mr. Banerjee in his usual fairness has submitted that Rule 1-A could be availed of by any party without applying for summons under Rule 1 indicating thereby that Order 16 Rule 1 and Rule 1-A are to operate in different field. ( 6 ) MR. Dipak Banerjee, the learned Advocate, appearing for the opposite party has contended that the order passed by the Court is in consonance with the provisions of the statute and this Court has no scope to interfere with the Order. At the most, if any premium is attached to contention of Mr. Banerjee, as argued by Mr. Banerjee, it is nothing but a prayer made before the Court to issue summons at the risk of the defendant. If I go through the application dated 11. 12. 91 put in by the defendant for issuance of summons, it appears that the boot is on the other leg. It reflects precisely that it is but a prayer coming within the boundaries of Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 7 ) TO adjudge the claim of the opposite party, when I revert to the order impugned, it reveals that the learned court below has indicated in the order itself about the power of the court to issue summons under Order 16 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But a plain reading of Order 1 Rules 1 to 3 unerringly proves the power of a Court to permit a party to call whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness other than those whose names appeared in the list referred to in Sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. It is indicative, therefore, that the Court is empowered to extend its power to issue summons in respect of any witness whose names did not find place in the list and for examination of such witness cause must be shown to the satisfaction of the Court for omission of name of that witness. Therefore, the learned Munsif in absence of the list of witness cannot invoke any power under Order 16 Rule 1 to issue summons on the witnesses on the prayer of any party. ( 8 ) MR. Banerjee appearing for the O. P. , however, could not satisfy me that the order passed by the learned court below is protected by Order 16 of the Code. Thus, the exercise of power by the learned court below overriding the provision of law is undoubtedly illegal for which power under section 115 could be readily availed of. ( 9 ) IN my view, interference is very much permissible for the cogent reasons or compelling circumstances when show their head. Accordingly, I set aside the order complained of with a direction to dispose of any application for the identical relief if prayed for in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In the result the revision succeeds. Revision succeeds.