Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3290 (MAD)

Sai Jayakanth Bharathi v. R. Kasiraj

2018-09-26

M.S.RAMESH

body2018
JUDGMENT M.S. RAMESH, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioners is against the order rejecting the petitioners' application under Order 16 Rule 1(2) C.P.C., wherein the petitioners herein had sought for summoning four Revenue and Registration Authorities and the vendors of the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents herein have claimed to have obtained patta transferred in their names through the order passed by the Sub Collector and the said order reveals that the original owners have sold the major portion of the suit properties by forming lay outs. They have also sold parts of the suit properties as house sites. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the fact that the Sub Collector had cancelled the patta could be established only by summoning the concerned Sub Collector. He would further submit that Survey Nos.145/4 and 145/7 were merged by the Revenue Authorities and taking advantage of the merger, the vendors had created sale deeds and therefore, to substantiate this aspect also, the summoning of the Revenue Authorities is required. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the suit is one for bare injunction and that the present revision has been filed only for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings. According to him, the reasoning assigned by the petitioners herein in the application filed under Order 16 Rule 1(2) C.P.C. is not sufficient enough for summoning such Revenue Authorities. Even assuming that the reasoning given by the petitioners in the application that the deposition of P.W.1 in the cross-examination is contradictory to the pleadings, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners herein and as such, the summoning of the Revenue Authorities or the Registration Authorities does not arise. 5. By relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in N.Yovas and another Vs. Immanueal Jose and Others, (1996) AIR Kerala 1, learned counsel submitted that the scope of summoning any person under Order 16 Rule 1 (2) C.P.C. is for the purpose of speaking on a material fact and since the revenue documents are already available before this Court, presence of the public officials is not warranted. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsel. 7. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsel. 7. The object of Order 16 Rule 1 (2) C.P.C. is for the purpose of enabling the Court to decide as to whether the examination of witness is of any material benefit to decide the dispute between the parties. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the documents which the petitioner intends to establish through summoning the public officials, have already been produced before this Court. I am unable to comprehend as to how in a suit for permanent injunction, these documents require to be substantiated and established by summoning these Revenue or Registration officials. The documents speak for themselves. The Honourable Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgment while dealing with the scope of Order 16 Rule 1(2) C.P.C., had observed as follows: "8.Under Order XVI Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure a party desirous of obtaining any summon 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". The object of disclosing such purpose is to enable the Court to decide whether examination of such witness is of material benefit to decide the dispute. Court has to pass an order on the application and therefore a duty is cast on the Court to consider whether the purpose of citing the counsel of the opposite party as a witness is to speak to any material fact. If the Court is not so satisfied, the Court is not obliged to issue summons to him." 8. The aforesaid observation of the Division Bench is self-explanatory. In view of the above observation, it can only be concluded that there is a requirement for a judicial consideration before issuing summons to such authorities and the Court below had rightly exercised its discretion and held that the application seeking for summoning these witnesses was unwarranted. In view of the same, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the suit was presented in the year 2013, it has been unnecessarily kept pending for a substantial period. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the suit was presented in the year 2013, it has been unnecessarily kept pending for a substantial period. In my view, since the trial has commenced, it would be appropriate to direct the Court below to complete the suit proceedings within a stipulated time. Accordingly, by taking into consideration the fact that the evidence and plaintiff's argument is also over, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.