Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 380 (KAR)

G. B. Vijaykumar v. K. R. Nagaraja

2014-03-20

N.KUMAR

body2014
ORDER : N. Kumar, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by a witness in the suit who has been summoned to produce the original documents of title belonging to his property. 2. The plaintiff, in his suit O.S. No. 2216/2005 against A. Ramu and others, filed I.A. No. 13 under Order 16 Rule 1 and 6 CPC for issue of summons to the witness i.e., the petitioner herein to produce the original documents set out in the application. On receipt of summons, the witness filed an I.A. No. 14 to recall the order issuing summons to him and the same was opposed by the plaintiff. 3. After hearing both the parties to I.A. 13 and I.A. 14, the trial Court passed the impugned order directing the witness to produce the documents of title which are in his possession. In passing the impugned order it has considered Section 130 of the Indian Evidence Act on which reliance was placed and held that, the said provision comes into operation only when a prosecution is to be launched against a witness on the basis of the documents which are summoned from him. Since no such act is complained of in the instant case, the trial court was of the view that I.A. 13 filed by the plaintiff has to be allowed and it accordingly allowed the application. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Order XVI Rule 1 CPC dealing with list of witnesses and summons to witnesses reads as under:-- 1. List of witnesses and summons to witnesses:--(1) On or before such date as the court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which 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 produce documents and obtain summons to such persons for their attendance in Court. (2) A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court, an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. (2) A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court, an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. (3) 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. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), summons referred to in this rule may be obtained by the parties on an application to the Court or to such officer as may be appointed by the Court in this behalf within five days of presenting the list of witnesses under sub-rule(1). 6. Order XVI Rule 6 CPC reads as under:-- 6. Summons to produce document:- Any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence; and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. 7. From the above provisions it is clear that the Court has the power to issue summons to a witness to give evidence or to produce documents. Under Rule 6 of Order 16 of the Code, any person may be summoned to produce a document without being summoned to give evidence, in which event a witness may produce the document without attending the court personally. The witness summons or the summons to produce documents should be necessarily issued for adjudicating the dispute between the parties in the said suit. In other words, the documents so summoned should have some relevance to the property in dispute. 8. Section 130 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with production of title-deeds of witness who is not a party to a suit and the same reads as under:-- 130. In other words, the documents so summoned should have some relevance to the property in dispute. 8. Section 130 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with production of title-deeds of witness who is not a party to a suit and the same reads as under:-- 130. Production of title-deeds of witness not a party:--No witness who is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title-deeds to any property, or any document by virtue of which he holds any property as a pledgee or mortgagee, or any document the production of which might tend to criminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking production of such deeds or some person through whom he claims. 9. Section 130 of the Indian Evidence Act is in three parts Viz.,: (a) A witness who is not a party to a suit shall not be compelled to produce his title deeds to any property; or (b) A witness who is not a party to a suit shall not be compelled to produce any documents by virtue of which he holds the property as a pledgee or mortgagee; or (c) A witness who is not a party to a suit shall not be compelled to produce any document, if production of the same may tend to incriminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking production of such deeds or some person through whom he claims. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not a party to the suit in which summons is issued to produce the document. He being the owner of the property is entitled to hold the title deed in respect thereof. The said property is not the subject matter of the suit. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has anything to do with his property. Nor are the plaintiff and the defendant related to him in any manner. Under these circumstances, the first part Section 130 of the Evidence Act is attracted. The witness ought not to have been compelled to produce his title deeds as sought in the plaintiff's application. 11. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant has anything to do with his property. Nor are the plaintiff and the defendant related to him in any manner. Under these circumstances, the first part Section 130 of the Evidence Act is attracted. The witness ought not to have been compelled to produce his title deeds as sought in the plaintiff's application. 11. A reading of the impugned order shows that the learned trial Judge has committed a serious error in not appreciating the entire Section 130 of the Indian evidence Act and thereby overruled the objection of the witness by holding that no criminal case would be launched against the witness if he produces the title deed. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained. 12. In the result, I pass the following ORDER (a) Writ Petition is allowed. (b) The impugned order is hereby set aside. c) I.A. No. 13 filed by the plaintiff for issue of summons to the witness to produce documents is dismissed. & d) I.A. 14 filed for recalling the order issuing summons to the petitioner is allowed.