JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. T. Islam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondents on call in spite of service of notice. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.11.2019 whereby the Court below rejected the application for examining one Azizul Haque as a Defendant Witness No.5. 3. The reasons assigned in the said application is that one Mohammad Israil was DW-3 whose name was duly given in the list of witnesses. The said Mohammad Israil on 14.12.2012 had submitted his examination-in-chief as DW3 but prior to the said witness being cross-examined, he expired on 23.11.2017. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner on 25.01.2018 filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1(iii) and Order XVIII Rule 4 read with Section 151 for submission of an additional list of witnesses including one Pal Singh as a witness and to allow him to file an examination-in-chief for the ends of justice. Subsequent thereto, before any order could be passed by the Court below on such application, the said Pal Singh died on 23.05.2018. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner filed another application seeking the leave of the Court to permit the Petitioner to adduce the evidence of one Azizul Haque and to file his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit. This petition was registered and numbered as Petition No.2476/2018. The Trial Court vide an order dated 11.11.2019 rejected the said petition on the ground that the reasons assigned in the said application were not good reasons assigned and as such the said application was rejected. Being aggrieved, the instant application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard Mr. T. Islam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. On a specific query being made to the learned counsel as to whether the Defendant No.1 would be producing the witness Mr. Azizul Haque on his own without the assistance of the Court, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Defendant No.1 would be producing the witness in terms with Order XVI Rule 1(A) of the Code and there is no necessity of issuance of any summons upon him. 5. Taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mange Ram Vs. 5. Taking into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mange Ram Vs. Brij Mohan and Others reported in (1983) 4 SCC 36 as well as the judgment in the case of Ashok Sharma Vs. Ram Adhar Sharma reported in (2009) 11 SCC 47 wherein the Supreme Court had held that a plain reading of Order XVI Rule 1(A) of the Code would clearly show that a party is empowered to bring any witness without obtaining summons subject to the permission of the Court even if the name of the witness is not in the list to be presented within 15 days of the settlement issues. It was further held that a conjoint reading of Order XVI Rule 1 and 1(A) of the Code would clearly indicate that it is open to a party to summon a witness to the Court or even may without applying for summons to bring a witness to give evidence or to produce document. It was observed that since Rule 1(A) is subject to the provisions of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1 all that can be contended is that before proceeding to examine any witness who might have been brought by the party for this purpose, the leave of the Court may be necessary. It was observed that by itself would not mean that Rule 1(A) was in derogation to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1. The Supreme Court further observed that if on the date fixed for recording the evidence, the party is able to keep his witness present despite the fact that the name of the witness was not shown in the list filed under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 1, the party would be entitled to examine the witnesses and to produce the documents through the witnesses who are called to produce documents under Rule 1(A). 6. Taking into account that the original Defendant Witness No.3 have already expired after submitting his evidence on affidavit and the Defendant No.1 thereafter sought for leave to adduce the evidence of one Mr. Pal Singh who before the application being considered had also expired and further taking into consideration that without any summons from the Court, the Defendant No.1 would be able to file the evidence on affidavit of the said witness Mr. Pal Singh who before the application being considered had also expired and further taking into consideration that without any summons from the Court, the Defendant No.1 would be able to file the evidence on affidavit of the said witness Mr. Azizul Haque, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 11.11.2019 is required to be interfered with and accordingly, the same is interfered with. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed. 7. The interim order passed by this Court dated 02.03.2020 stands vacated and the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court i.e. the Court of the Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai on 02.11.2022 on which date the Defendant No.1 shall file the evidence on affidavit of Mr. Azizul Haque without fail. The Trial Court shall thereupon proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 8. With above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.