ORDER 1. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the interlocutory order dated 16.12.2015 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Distt. Bhind, whereby an application for summoning of a witness under Order 16 rule 1 CPC, whose details were not given earlier by the defendant No.1 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submits that he be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh application under Order 16 rule (1)(3) CPC. 3. It is seen from the record that application under Order 16 rule 1 CPC of the defendant No.1 was rejected on two counts. The first one was that since petitioner had not submitted any list of witnesses earlier under Order 16 rule 1 CPC, no witnesses can now be called. It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner by relying upon the recent decision of this Court in the case of Mandir Shri Hanuman Murti and another v. Collector Mahoday, Datia, reported in 2015(3) JLJ 396 , that even if list of witnesses was not furnished earlier, then the power of the Court to summon witnesses can very well be invoked under Clause (3) of Order 16 rule 1 of CPC. However, it is fairly submitted by the petitioner that the other ground on which, the application has been rejected is that no cogent reason has been assigned by the defendant No.1 to show sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness earlier. 4. Perusal of the application under Order 16 rule 1CPC (A - 5) confirms the above said contention of the learned counsel for petitioner/defendant No.1. 5. In view of the above, it is evident that the application has been inter alia rejected on the ground of lacking in material particulars in regard to the requirement of Clause (3) of Order 16 rule 1 CPC and therefore the claim of the petitioner for summoning of the witnesses could not be considered on merit. 6. It is trite principle of law that every litigant ought to be afforded an opportunity of deciding the issue involved on merit, without the same being scuttled on mere technicalities, unless the technicalities are so pre-dominant that they overshadow the merits of the matter. 7. 6. It is trite principle of law that every litigant ought to be afforded an opportunity of deciding the issue involved on merit, without the same being scuttled on mere technicalities, unless the technicalities are so pre-dominant that they overshadow the merits of the matter. 7. Accordingly, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India without interfering with the impugned order is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application under Order 16 rule 1(3) CPC seeking summoning of witnesses after satisfying the requirements of the said provision, which if done within a period of seven working days from today, shall be entertained and decided by the trial Court on its own merit, without being influenced by the fact of the petitioner having approached this Court and the fact of passing of impugned order by the trial Court dated 16.12.2015. 8. It is needless to emphasize that the trial Court shall first to advert to the fresh application, if filed by the petitioner, before hearing final arguments.