Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2049 (RAJ)

Ramlakhan v. ADJ No. 1, Bharatpur

2012-10-01

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 18th April,2012 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.1, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'), whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner for summoning the witnesses as per the list annexed to the said application under the provisions contained in Order 16, Rule 1 (2) & (3) of CPC. Nobody appears for the respondent No.2-plaintiff, though duly served. 2. The learned counsel Mr. Saransh Saini for the petitioner drawing the attention of the court to the deposition of the respondent No.2-plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff had stated in his evidence interalia that the promissory note in question was executed in presence of his son-in-law Dinesh and his niece Neelam, who had also put their signatures on the same. According to Mr. Saini the said pro-note being forged one, it is necessary to examine the said two witnesses who were allegedly present and had put their signatures on the said pro-note. 3. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent No.2-plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant for recovery of Rs. 2,52,000/- on the basis of the promissory note allegedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2. The said pro-note has been challenged by the petitioner-defendant on the ground of being forged and fabricated one. During the course of evidence of the respondent-plaintiff, it was stated by him that the said pro-note was executed in presence of his son-in law Dinesh and his niece Neelam. Under the circumstances, the petitioner submitted the application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC requesting the court to summon such two witnesses in order to show as to whether the said promissory note bore their signatures as alleged by the plaintiff. Since the respondent-plaintiff has chosen not to appear and contest the present petition, it is presumed that he has no objection if the said application of the petitioner for summoning the said two witnesses is allowed. Even otherwise from the contents of the application made by the petitioner, it transpires that the said application was filed on the basis of the statement made by the respondent-plaintiff and the said two witnesses were required to be summoned for giving evidence on the disputed promissory note. Under the circumstances, the present petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Even otherwise from the contents of the application made by the petitioner, it transpires that the said application was filed on the basis of the statement made by the respondent-plaintiff and the said two witnesses were required to be summoned for giving evidence on the disputed promissory note. Under the circumstances, the present petition deserves to be allowed. 4. In that view of the matter the order dated 18.4.12 passed by the trial court is set aside. The application of the petitioner Annex.7 for summoning the witnesses as prayed for is allowed. The trial court is directed to issue summons to the said witnesses as prayed for.Petition allowed. *******