Honble MADAN, J.–Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma petitioner who is a practising Advocate of this Court has preferred this revision petition against an order dated 10.1.2000 in Civil Suit No. 257/96 whereby the trial Court (ADJ No.8 Jaipur City) allowed defendant respondents application with costs of Rs. 1000/- under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC for allowing two additional witnesses for being examined in his support. (2). A suit for eviction was instituted by the plaintiff (petitioner) against the defendant (respondent) on the grounds of : (1) default in payment of the rent, (2) sub-letting and (3) reasonable bonafide necessity. Written statement was filed by the respondent. The issues were framed. Additional Issues Nos. 9 & 10 were framed on 2.12.94 and 6.11.96 respectively. The plaintiff adduced his evidence and closed it on 11.2.99. The examination-in-chief of defendant who appeared as DW 1 was completed on 6.11.98 and thereafter since the plaintiff moved certain applications the trial Court first considered those applications. Ultimately, the plaintiff cross examined Jagdish defendant (DW1) on nine dates and closed his cross examination on 12.10.99. Since, it has been plaintiffs case that the defendant had sublet the suit premises without permission of the plaintiff to one Dinesh Parwani who unauthorisedly established business of STD/PCO Shop thereon, plaintiffs application for summoning file as to establish his case for business of STD/PCO Shop, was allowed by the trial Court on costs of Rs. 400/- and in this regard, a number of questions were put to Jagdish (DW1) (defendant) by the plaintiff during cross examination. (3). However, the defendant moved an application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC for examining two additional witnesses on his behalf namely; (1) Dinesh Parwani and (2) Montoo Jasnani by incorporating their names in the list of defendant witnesses already furnished to the trial Court in order to disprove the fact of sub-letting developed by the plaintiff in his amended plaint, to which the plaintiff contested by filing his reply. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court allowed defendants application subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 1000/-, directing him to get summons of afore named witnesses served at his own instance. Hence this revision petition. (4). After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court allowed defendants application subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 1000/-, directing him to get summons of afore named witnesses served at his own instance. Hence this revision petition. (4). Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, petitioner plaintiff, appearing in person, vehemently contended that if the impugned order is considered in the context of provisions of Order 16 Rule 1(1) to 1(4) so also Rule 1A CPC, it is wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, the order is hit by provisions of Sec. 115 (1) (a), CPC. Next contention canvassed by Shri Sharma is that the trial Court passed the impugned order on the assumption that while considering application under order 16 Rule 1, CPC it could ignore the mandate of Order 16 Rule 1(2) which are binding in nature and even otherwise, if a particular provision of an Order of the CPC gives discretion to the court, such a discretion has to be exercised fairly in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Mangeram vs. Brij Mohan (1). It is the petitioners case that defendants application was clearly against the mandate of Rule 1(1) of Order 16 as it did not make any mention as to the purpose for which the witnesses were proposed to be summoned, inasmuch as requirement of sub clause (2) of Rule 1 of Order 16 was lacking in the instant case and that being so, the trial Court had no occasion for allowing defendants application to record sufficient cause for the omission to mention names of these two witnesses. (5). Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma the petitioner herein also contended that the trial court failed to give reasons and pass a speaking order as to sufficient cause for the omission to mention names of such witnesses in terms of sub cl. (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC and therefore the order to give summons to summon witnesses is contrary to sub-cl. (4) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC. (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC and therefore the order to give summons to summon witnesses is contrary to sub-cl. (4) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC. Lastly Shri Sharma contended that by the method adopted by the defendant tenant and accepted by the trial Court it has resulted in failure of justice to the plaintiff and further causing irreparable loss by delaying the disposal of the civil suit because the trial court should have considered the conduct of the defendant tenant which was of abusing process due of law inasmuch as he did not proceed in accordance with mandate of O. 16 R. 1(1), (2), (3) & (4) CPC and on earlier occasion when had filed the application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC he did not insist or prefer to make any prayer for examining the two more witnesses and he did not follow earlier orders dated 12.7.99 and 21.12.99. He also added that the judgment of this Court in Kalu vs. Chhitar (2), was wrongly applied to the instant case. (6). On the contrary, Shri J.P. Goyal learned counsel for the respondent defendant contended that at his own instance and without assistance of the Court, the defendant has produced two additional witnesses Montoo Jasnani on one date fixed for recording defence evidence and Dinesh Parwani on subsequent date and that apart Montoo Jasnani named in the application in question has already been examined by the trial Court and the plaintiff without having raised any objection has already cross examined him and that being so, once the impugned order has already been acted upon, this revision petition of the petitioner is devoid of merit and hence no maintainable. (7). Supporting the reasons assigned by the trial court in the impugned order, Shri Goyal contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not the case where the order of the trial Court is without jurisdiction or the trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it by law, inasmuch as the trial Court has not at all committed any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction nor the impugned order has occasioned a failure of justice causing any irreparable loss or injury to the plaintiff as he has right to cross examine such witnesses and has still to rebut their evidence. Shri Goyal further contended that there is no bar under the law for the trial court to have permitted the defendant to examine two additional witnesses since due to justifiable reasons their names could not have been mentioned in the list and he had shown sufficient cause. (8). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel at the bar, it is necessary to state provisions contained in Rules 1, 1A & 4 of O. 16, CPC. Sub Rule (1) of R. 1 of O. 16 CPC provides that on or before such date fixed by the Court and not later than fifteen days after the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to pro- duce documents and obtain summons to such persons for their attendance in Court. Sub rule (3) of R. 1 of O. 16 CPC provides that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness other than those whose names appear 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. Rule 1A of Order 16 CPC provides that subject to the provisions of sub rule (3) of Rule 1 any party to the suit may, without applying for summons under Rule 1, bring any witness to give evidence or to produce documents. This evidently means that requirement of sub rule (1) of Rule 1 Order 16 CPC can reasonably be relaxed in appropriate cases if the interest of justice so demands subject to the reasons and satisfaction being recorded by the trial Court for permission to any of the parties to examine by producing him in Court by way of summons or otherwise any witness who has not been named in the list referred to in sub rule (1) of Rule 1. Thus powers of relaxation are vested with the Court in appropriate case under Order 16 Rule 1A, CPC. (9). Thus powers of relaxation are vested with the Court in appropriate case under Order 16 Rule 1A, CPC. (9). The controversy at issue between the parties in this petition which arises out of the impugned order passed by the trial Court is confined to the defendants application filed on 6.1.2000 u/O. 16 R. 1 CPC wherein it has been prayed for permission to examine two additional witnesses namely; (1) Dinesh Parwani and (2) Montoo Jasnani by incorporating them in the list of defendants witnesses for being summoned in accordance with law, whose names could not be included earlier because after list of defendants witnesses was filed, plaintiff amended his plaint and consequently it has necessitated to examine the said witnesses by way of additional evidence. (10). As per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 16 is attracted and applicable at the stage after the issues are settled but not beyond 15 days where after, the parties to the suit are required to file a list of their witnesses in support of their respective cases. Sub rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 16 applies to a party who seeks to obtain summons for the attendance of any person provided he files an application stating the purpose for which he is proposed to be summoned. Thereafter, as per Sub rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 which applies to the case where a party desires to call a witness or witnesses by summoning them through court or otherwise, a witness whose name could not be included in the list already filed earlier; under sub Rule (1), but subject to the condition that such act must show sufficient cause for the omission to mention name of such witness in the list earlier and if the Court is satisfied with such sufficient cause, then of course the Court has to record its reasons for its satisfaction and thereafter accord permission to the concerned party to produce such witnesses under sub Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC at his own responsibility. Likewise, if any party does not desire to apply for obtaining summons under Rule 1 and in other words, he seeks to produce witness without summons at his own responsibility, then provisions of Rule 1A of Order 16 CPC come into play if he brings any witness to give evidence or to produce documents but such relaxation is subject to the provisions of sub Rule (3) of Rule 1, implying thereby that such party invoking Rule 1A is required to establish sufficient cause as enshrined under sub Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC. (11). Thus viewed from the above angle, it cannot be said that the trial Court is not vested with jurisdiction to invoke sub Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC for permitting a party to call by summoning through Court or otherwise any of the witnesses whose names could not be included earlier in the list submitted under sub rule (1). However, the court is required to record its reasons for invoking aforesaid sub rule (3) provided it establishes sufficient cause by the party seeking to call the witness, for his omission to mention names of additional witnesses in the list earlier filed under sub rule (1). In this view of the matter, it cannot be held that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction of the court in the context of provisions of Order 16 Rule 1(1) to 1(4) CPC being hit by Sec. 115(1)(4) CPC. (12). In my considered view, provisions of sub rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC are not applicable to present case as the defendant has not sought to obtain summons for the attendance of any person and that apart to apply for under sub rule (2) party is required to state the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. Since, in the instant case, the defendant did not mention the two additional witnesses in the list submitted earlier under sub Rule (1) of Rule 1 after the issues were settled, definitely he has no option but to apply for either under sub Rule (3) of Order 16 CPC so as to call witnesses by summoning through court or otherwise, or under rule 1A of Order 16 so as to call witness without apply for summons under Rule 1, but subject to showing sufficient cause for his omission to name the desired witness in the list filed earlier under sub Rule (1). Moreover, if conjointly read together with Order 18 Rule 2(4) CPC, it is explicit clear that the Court can direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage of the suit irrespective of the fact as to whether the name of such witness or witnesses had not been recorded in the list of witnesses submitted earlier by the concerned party to the case. Thus in this view of the matter, I am consequently of the view that the defendant was rightly permitted by the trial Court to have examined two additional witnesses especially when admittedly the plaintiff had amended his plaint specifically pleading therein at page 8 as to his allegation of threats having been given by the tenant and his partner Dinesh Parwani (who is sought to be arrayed as additional witness) and this amendment in the plaint had taken place admittedly after the list of defendant witnesses are required under sub rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC was filed earlier upon settlement of the issues. (13). As already discussed above, the stage of application of provisions under sub rules (1) and (2) Order 16 CPC is after the settlement of issues, filing of the list of witnesses and before the commencement of adducing evidence under sub rule (4) of Rule 1 is applied in consonance with sub rule (2) of Rule 1 and that too upon, permission to obtain summons for attendance of any person is accorded by the court under sub rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC. Hence, provisions of sub rule (3) of Rule 1 besides Rule 1A of Order 16 CPC read with Order 18 Rule 2(4) CPC are applicable being attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, provisions of sub rule (3) of Rule 1 besides Rule 1A of Order 16 CPC read with Order 18 Rule 2(4) CPC are applicable being attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. Other provisions of sub rules (1), (2) & (4) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC as is being contended by the petitioner are not at all applicable in the instant case and that being so there was no necessity to State purpose at the time of application filed under Order 16 Rule 1(3) and Rule 1A CPC and sufficient cause for omission to mention name of witnesses in the earlier list is all that is required to be shown to the satisfaction of the court under Order 16 Rule 1(3) & Rule 1A CPC with which the trial Court has satisfied. I am satisfied with the observations made by this Court in Kanhaiya Lal vs. Nenu Ram (3), wherein it has been held that the purpose for which the witnesses are proposed to be examined it need not be complied with at the time of filing the application under Rule 1(1) of Order 16 but could be done at the time when witnesses are required to be summoned. (14). In Kalu vs. Chhitar (supra), this Court has followed the dictum of law laid down in Mangeram vs. Brijmohan (supra). The Apex Court in Mangerams case (supra) had negatived the reasons assigned by the trial Court in refusing to examine witnesses present in Court on the ground that their names and gist of evidence had not been set out in the list filed u/O. 16 R. 1 CPC. In Kalus case (supra), this Court held that mere fact that the concerned party could not file the list of witnesses within the prescribed time, it cannot take away its right to defend the case and produce the additional witnesses. It was further observed that the Courts paramount duty is to do justice between the parties and to arrive at the right conclusion by giving full opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective case. Moreover, it is trite law that the procedural rules are subservient to the principle and object of administration of justice and cannot be allowed to retard it, inasmuch as procedural wringers should not be given proportionate importance to throttle justice. Moreover, it is trite law that the procedural rules are subservient to the principle and object of administration of justice and cannot be allowed to retard it, inasmuch as procedural wringers should not be given proportionate importance to throttle justice. Thus, the aggrieved party must have full opportunity to give evidence if the justice requires it and there is no injustice if other side can be compensated by costs. This proposition is also supported by the decision of the Apex Court in Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal Kota (4). (15). In the present case, even the plaintiff also filed application under Order 16 Rules 1(2), 1(3) & 1(4) CPC on 2.6.99 stating therein that the defendant has sublet suit premises to one Dinesh Parwani indulging in carrying on business of STD/PCO in an illegal manner, so he sought to summon telephone departments file which was allowed by the trial Court. The plaintiff adduced his evidence as pleaded in amended plaint and also developed in oral evidence. The plaintiff continued to record his evidence till 11.2.1999 whereafter defendant commenced to adduce his evidence whose witness was cross examined at length by the plaintiff and who had in the meantime also succeeded in his application for summoning documents required for cross examination of defendant as DW1. In this situation, I am of the opinion that right to defend in the list of subsequent pleading cannot be taken away. Sub rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC has given ample discretion to the trial Court to afford reasonable opportunity to the party like defendant in the instant case to call any witness by summoning through court or otherwise, whose name is omitted to have been mentioned in earlier list filed after settlement of issues or otherwise thereafter. (16). Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order to give summons to summon witnesses could not be said to be contrary to sub rules (1) to (4) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC nor it can be said to have been passed wholly without jurisdiction. (16). Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order to give summons to summon witnesses could not be said to be contrary to sub rules (1) to (4) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC nor it can be said to have been passed wholly without jurisdiction. Merely, because the defendant did not insist or prefer to make any prayer for examining two more witnesses, he cannot be held to have not followed earlier orders which were in different context and that apart his right to defend cannot be curtailed at the instance of either party nor the conduct of the defendant was such so as to disentitle him to call his witness by availing of right to defend by summoning u/sub-rule (3) of R. 1 of O. 16 CPC. The trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction vested in it under sub rule (3) of Rule 1 and 1A of Order 16 CPC in accordance with law after having recorded its reasons upon the defendant having shown sufficient cause for his omission to name his additional witnesses in the list earlier filed under sub rule (1) of Rule 1. I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order that too on the assertions made by the petitioner in this revision petition. Hence, the petitioner has no case on merits to invoke revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115 CPC. (17). As a result of the above discussion, this civil revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The impugned order dated 10.1.99 of the trial Court in civil suit No. 257/96 (Old No. 48/93) allowing defendants (respondent) application for summoning two additional witnesses, is upheld. However, since the revision petition arises out of suit for ejectment which is pending since 1993, the trial Court is directed to expeditiously decide the suit, itself, but not beyond three months from the receipt of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court forthwith. The record be sent back to the trial court.