ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Sri P. Srinivasa Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the first respondent.
2. Sri Srinivasa Reddy representing the revision petitioner-first defendant would contend that normally summoning the witness along with the records to be allowed and the reasons which had been recorded by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, are totally unsustainable reasons. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through certain factual details and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal could have given an opportunity to the revision petitioner by allowing the application. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Gopala Krishna Murthy v. B. Ramachander Rao and Ors. .
3. Per contra, Sri Rama Krishna Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the first respondent-plaintiff would submit that several of the facts are not in controversy and this application is thought of only to further delay the matter and in a way it can be said that this application is a frivolous application for the reason that there is no foundation in the pleadings relating to the case which now the revision petitioner intends to build up and in view of the lack of pleadings, the question of adducing any evidence in that direction would not be of any help to resolve any controversy whatsoever involved in the suit. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decisions in Bandi Narsaiah (died) and Ors. v. Virabathini Mallesham and Anr. , Vinod Kumar Arora v. (Mrs.) Surjit Kaur and Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by LRs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College and Ors. .
4. This Court ordered notice before admission in the matter and granted interim stay for a period of two weeks. The revision petitioner-first defendant in O.S. No. 120 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, had preferred the C.R.P. as against the order made in LA. No. 823 of 2006 in the aforesaid suit dated 21-8-2006. The application was filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon the witness along with records. The stand taken by the revision petitioner-applicant in LA. No. 823 of 2006 in O.S. No. 120 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, is that the first respondent-plaintiff denied the handwriting and signatures of his son N. Sreedhar Babu, who scribed cheques-Exs. B7 to B18 and had narrated certain details in relation thereto. The application was resisted by filing a counter in detail. The learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, after framing the point for consideration, discussed certain of the factual details inclusive of certain portions of the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that this application cannot be allowed mainly on the ground that the stand now being taken is not supported by the pleadings and also on yet another ground that two reliefs being prayed in the application and such application also cannot be maintained. The learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Gopala Krishna Murthy v. B. Ramchander Rao and others (supra), wherein the learned Judge of this Court at Para 9 observed as hereunder:
A reading of the above authorities leads me to lay down the following propositions:
(1) Under Order 16 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code it is the right of the party at any stage of the suit to make an application to the Court seeking that summons be issued to a witness either to give evidence or to produce documents.
(2) The Court is not entitled to refuse such an application on the ground that it might cause delay in the trial of the suit on the adjourned date of the suit.
(3) If the summons is not served by the adjourned date of the suit the party who filed the application to issue the summons would take the risk.
(4) If an application for adjournment is made at the instance of the party who applied under Order 16 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code it is for the Court to consider whether or not an adjournment should be granted.
(5) The Court may not refuse to order an application under Order 16 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the evidence, if produced, may not be of any help to the appellant.
(6) Though Order 16 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code does not in terms impose any restrictions on the Court, the Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction may refuse to issue summons in an application made under Order 16 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code in those cases where it is satisfied that the application filed was not bona fide or was vexatious or granting the application would result in an abuse of process of the Court. Except in these three above contingencies the application must almost always be ordered.
5. It is no doubt true that in summoning the witnesses and summoning the documents, normally the Courts are to be liberal provided the Courts are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case such applications are bona fide and by non-allowing such applications and by shutting such evidence, prejudice would be caused. It is needless to say that quite often the parties would be moving such applications just to delay the final disposal of the matter and in such cases, such applications being frivolous the Courts would be justifieu in negativing the relief. It is not in controversy that this application is thought of at a belated stage.
6. Be that as it may, it is needless to say that normally all essential facts are to be pleaded and when an essential fact is not pleaded, the question of letting in any evidence in relation to such plea is impermissible. Strong reliance was placed on the decisions in Bandi Narsaiah (died) and Ors. v. Virabathini Mallesham and another (supra), Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt. Surjit Kaur (supra) and Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by LRs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College and Ors. (supra).
7. The learned Judge recorded reasons in detail at Paras 8 and 9 and discussed some evidence available on record and arrived at a conclusion that no purpose would be served by allowing the application in question. In addition thereto the learned Judge also observed that when there are no pleadings, the party not to be permitted to let in evidence to that extent and thus the application is not bona fide. Further, the learned Judge observed that two reliefs are being prayed for in the application and on that ground also the relief to be negatived.
8. Viewed from any angle especially in the light of the limitations imposed on this Court in exercising the jurisdiction and the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit matter to be interfered with.
9. Accordingly, the C.R.P. shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
