JUDGMENT : Janak Raj Kotwal, J.:- 1. This is a petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir seeking quashing of order dated 08.02.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jammu in a civil suit, titled, Gurdeep Singh Bijral v. Union of India and Ors. to the extent it allows two applications, one moved by respondents (defendants) 1 & 3 and the other by respondent (defendant) No. 2 and permits them to file the lists of their witnesses, which they had failed to file within stipulated period after framing of the issues, and to deposit their diet expenses and take dasti summons for their appearance. The impugned order would show that issues in the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff were framed on 07.08.2010 and parties were directed to file lists of witnesses within 15 days. Respondents/defendants did not file lists of their witnesses within the stipulated time. After decision in the preliminary issues, the petitioner entered his evidence, which came to be closed on 22.01.2014. At this stage, the two applications came to be filed by the respondents seeking permission to file lists of witnesses and to deposit their diet expenses. Petitioner opposed these applications. 2. Learned trial court in reference to Order 16, Rule 1 CPC, which provides that parties to the suit shall file lists of their witnesses in the court not later than 15 days after the date of framing of the issues, allowed the applications observing in the impugned order that the 'provision for filing the lists of witnesses within 15 days from the date of framing the issues is not mandatory but directory in nature' and observing further that 'court has discretion to entertain it after expiry of requisite time. This discretion has to be exercised judicially and on sufficient reasons' and holding that 'defendants have shown sufficient cause in not furnishing list of witnesses in time'. In allowing these applications, learned trial court also drew support from sections 148 and 151 CPC. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the learned trial court did not accord consideration to the grounds on which applications were opposed by him. In allowing these applications, learned trial court also drew support from sections 148 and 151 CPC. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the learned trial court did not accord consideration to the grounds on which applications were opposed by him. Averments made in paragraph 7 of the ' petition would show that the petitioner (plaintiff) had questioned the requirement of evidence sought to be led by the defendants on the strength of decisions/judgments in earlier litigation between the parties. Besides, it is contended by the petitioner that the trial court has passed short and cryptic order taking resort to Section 148 CPC without recording any other reason for allowing the applications and has therefore, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. 5. Mr. Anil Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that requirement of filing lists of witnesses within 15 days after framing of the issues is mandatory and time could not have been extended by the trial court. In support Mr. Sethi cited Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan, AIR 1983 SC 925 and Mehta Yog Raj v. All J & K Labanan Sikh Centre Gurdwara, 1997 KLJ 50 : JKJ Soft JKJ/11368. Mr. Sethi urged that the evidence sought to be adduced through the witnesses mentioned in the lists is aimed at prolonging the proceedings as such evidence was not required in view of the earlier decisions between the same parties but the learned trial court did not accord consideration to the objection in this regard raised by the petitioner. In support Mr. Sethi placed reliance on Yashpal Sawhney v. Gandotra Traders, 1994 JKLR 658 : JKJ Soft JKJ/12812. Mr. Sethi urged further that learned trial court has committed patent error by drawing support from section 148 CPC because the provision contained in that section has been drastically amended and in no case extension of time can exceed beyond 30 days after the stipulated time, whereas learned trial court has granted extension in time for filing the lists of witnesses to the respondents more than three years after expiry of the stipulated time. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned CGSC, appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand questioned the maintainability of petition under section 104, of the State Constitution submitting that trial court has the discretion to allow filing of list of witnesses by a party even after expiry of stipulated 15 days if sufficient cause is shown and such a discretion having been exercised, cannot be assailed by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under section 104 of the State Constitution. Mr. Sharma also submitted that even the petitioner (plaintiff) had filed list of his witnesses beyond stipulated period of 15 days. 7. Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC read in juxtaposition with Rule 1-A makes it obligatory for the parties to a suit to file lists of all those witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents within 15 days after framing of the issues. Filing of the list within fifteen days, however, is obligatory in respect of those witnesses only whom a party intends to be called through agency of the court, whereas it is open to a party to produce of his own witnesses even if no list is filed or a witness even if he is not mentioned in the list already filed (Ref. AIR 1983 SC 925 ). 8. Filing of list of witnesses to be summoned through the court within 15 days after framing of the issues is mandatory indeed but Sub Rule (3) of Order 16 Rule 1 gives discretion to the court to permit a party to call by summoning through court or otherwise any witnesses, whose name(s) does not appear in the list already filed, if a sufficient cause for omission to mention his/their name(s) in the list is shown. Under Sub Rule (3), court has the discretion to allow a list of witnesses to be filed at any time even if no list is filed within stipulated 15 days after framing of the issues, if sufficient cause for failure in this regard is shown. Under Sub Rule (3), court has the discretion to allow a list of witnesses to be filed at any time even if no list is filed within stipulated 15 days after framing of the issues, if sufficient cause for failure in this regard is shown. Supreme Court in Lalitha J. Rai v. Aithappa Rai, AIR 1995 SC 1984 , while dealing with a fact situation somewhat similar to that in the case on hand, has observed: "It would, thus, be seen that the legislature did not put a total prohibition on the party to produce the witnesses or the production of the documents for proof of the respective case. Nonetheless, when they seek the assistance of the Court, they are enjoined to give reasons as to why they have not filed the application within the time prescribed under Rule 1 of Order 16. It is seen that in the application it was stated by the husband of the appellant that they were under the bona fide impression that they have already filed the list of the witnesses along with the documents and that the mistake of non-filing the list was 'discovered when they were getting ready for the trial. It is not in dispute that the trial is yet to begin. In these circumstances, we think that the trial court committed illegality in refusing to receive the list for summoning the witnesses for adduction of evidence by the plaintiff. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the trial court and the High Court are set aside The list already furnished is a valid list. The trial court greeted to summon the witnesses for examination on behalf of the plaintiff. No costs" 9. In this case, learned trial court has allowed the applications and thereby permitted filing of the lists of witnesses and depositing their diet expenses after holding that defendants have shown sufficient cause for not filling the list in time and in that learned trial court in allowing the applications can be said to have exercised its discretion under Sub Rule (3) of Order 16 Rule 1. This has been done at a stage when petitioner's evidence was just closed and the respondents had yet to enter their evidence. This has been done at a stage when petitioner's evidence was just closed and the respondents had yet to enter their evidence. Neither it is apparent on the face of record nor it could be made out by learned petitioner's counsel that the exercise of discretion by the court is without any basis and patently illegal or suffers from impropriety. No case for invoking and exercising the supervisory Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 104 of the State Constitution, therefore, is made out. 10. Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (section 104 of the State Constitution) cannot be invoked and exercised as a matter of routine nor this jurisdiction can be invoked to express dissatisfaction with the view taken by the subordinate court or to make out that the decision of the subordinate court could have been or must have been other than what it is. Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked and exercised only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it 'within the bounds of their authority' and to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. Apart from the above, High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural, justice have been flouted (Ref-Wrayan Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 : SC 215, Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chandera Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 , Shalini Shyam Setty v. Rajinder Shanker Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 and Kokkanda B. Poondacha v. K.D. Ganapathi and Anr. AIR 2011 SC 1353). 11. AIR 2011 SC 1353). 11. In so far as learned trial court's reference to and drawing support from sections 148 and 151 CPC is concerned, the same was not required at all once learned trial court found sufficient cause for respondents failure to file list of witnesses in time and discretion to allow the applications was available objection to the impugned order on this score, therefore, could have been ignored but the same invites attention too, having regard to the circumstance in which support from section 148 CPC has been drawn by the learned trial court. 12. Learned trial court has drawn support from section 148 CPC in extending the time in filing the lists of witnesses by the respondents taking the view that court may in its discretion from time to time enlarge the period fixed or granted by the court for doing any act prescribed or allowed by the Code in view of the provisions of section 148 CPC. Section 148 CPC reads: "148. Enlargement of time Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may in its discretion, from time to time enlarge such period [not exceeding thirty days in total], even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired." 13. On its plain reading, discretion under section 148 CPC can be exercised by a Court only when the period for doing an act is fixed or granted by the Court. Under section 148, Court can extend time for doing an act when the time is fixed by the Court and the act to be is prescribed or allowed by the Code, that is, the CPC. Discretion under section 148 CPC cannot be exercised to extend a period which is fixed by a provision of CPC or by any other law. 14. In Mohan Lal v. Hari parsad Yadav, (1994) 4 SCC 177 , an application purporting to be under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC for setting aside the sale was filed after the expiry of sixty days' limitation prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act. 14. In Mohan Lal v. Hari parsad Yadav, (1994) 4 SCC 177 , an application purporting to be under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC for setting aside the sale was filed after the expiry of sixty days' limitation prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act. Since section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to such an application, Supreme Court took up the question 'whether Section 148 of the Code would be applicable' and held that Section 148 would not be applicable 'for the simple reason that the time for making an application under Rule 89 of Order 21 of the Code is not fixed by the Court'. 15. The scope of the discretion vested in a court under section 148 CPC has been accorded consideration by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in K.C.M. Ltd. v. Padmanabha Pillai, AIR 1958 Ker 88 , though in juxtaposition with section 149. Learned Full Bench in para 12 of the judgment observed that section 148 CPC comes into play "when once the 'time has been already fixed or granted by the Court, not only in matters of Court-fees, but also in all other cases and the Court is given the power to enlarge such period originally fixed or granted even after the expiry of that period. Besides, learned Full Bench pointed out, towards the end of Para, 19, that Section 148 will not apply to cases where a period is fixed under any statute. 16. Another point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that evidence sought to by adduced through the witnesses mentioned in the lists was not required in view of the earlier decisions/judgments between the same parties but the learned trial court did not accord consideration to the objection in this regard raised by the petitioner. It was urged by Mr. Sethi that requirement of adducing such evidence should have been considered by the trial court and in support reliance was placed on Yashpal Sawhney v. Gandotra Traders, 1994 JKLR 658 : JKJ Soft JKJ/12812. 17. It was urged by Mr. Sethi that requirement of adducing such evidence should have been considered by the trial court and in support reliance was placed on Yashpal Sawhney v. Gandotra Traders, 1994 JKLR 658 : JKJ Soft JKJ/12812. 17. In Yashpal Sawhneys case a learned Single Judge of this Court (A.M. Mir J. as his Lordship then was), while emphasizing that duty is cast upon the courts to control the proceedings, has held that in every case when an application is made in terms of Order 16 Rule 1 CPC, Court has to apply its mind and restrict the number of witnesses to an extent which should cater the requirement of the case. It is important to note that decision in Yashpal's case has been rendered in backdrop of a situation where defendant in an eviction suit pending in a court at Jammu had produced a list of as many as 59 witnesses belonging to Srinagar and had sought their summoning through court for proving only two question of fact involved in the case. Learned Judge of this Court while pointing out that Order 16 Rule 1 does not lay out the number of witnesses that a party in suit can produce underlined the duty cast upon the court to restrict the number of witnesses to a particular extent as per the requirement of the case. Learned Judge of this Court also referred to section 134 of the Evidence Act, which provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a certain fact and section 3, which gives meaning of a fact 'proved' and a fact 'disproved'. The ratio of Yashpal's case is not applicable to the case on hand as question raised before the trial court simply was whether permission to file list of witnesses much after the expiry of prescribed period should be granted or not. 19. For aforementioned, no case for interference with impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jammu in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under section 104 of the State Constitution is made out. Petition is, therefore, dismissed.