Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Civil Revision Petition Is Filed By ... vs G.Renuka Devi 2012 (2) Alt 675 on 11 November, 2022
1
1THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.814 OF 2017
ORDER:
01. This Civil Revision petition is filed by the Petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the learned IV Addl.District Judge, Srikakulam in G.R.No.1027/2016 in O.S.No.61 of 2013 dated 22-07-2016 where in and whereby the learned Trial Judge rejected petition filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 14 of Civil Procedure code (in short CPC) seeking prayer to issue summons to the other attestor and scribe of Suit promissory note for enabling the petitioner to cross-examine them to prove his contention.
02. The case of the petitioner before Trial Court in brief is that respondent had filed the suit against him for recovery of promissory note debt, wherein respondent examined as PW1 and also examined one of the attestor as PW2 and closed his side evidence. The petitioner submits that to prove that suit promissory note is concocted and fabricated; he intended to cross-examine other attestor and scribe of promissory note.
2
03. The learned Trial Judge after hearing counsel for petitioner/ defendant rejected the petition filed by the petitioner before registering the petition.
04. Aggrieved by the orders passed by Court below petitioner preferred present Revision petition stating that order of the Trial Judge is contrary to law, by way of evidence and probabilities of the case. It is contention of Revision petitioner that, Trial Judge failed to see that very purpose of cross-examination is to test veracity of witness and to elicit the truth and if witness is not examined by other party, as his own, such witness will be called for the purpose of cross-examination on an application filed under Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC who can be examined as court witness, which failed to consider by the Court below. He also stated that rejecting the petition before registering is bad in view of Rule 54, Rule 56 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice, 1990.
05. I have heard learned counsel Mrs.T.V.Sridevi for petitioner, she would submit that rejecting petition before registering the same is bad which has to be set aside. She would further submit that as per Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC, Court has got ample power to summon any witness to arrive at just conclusion in the suit. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that cross-examining the other 3 attestor and scribe of Suit promissory note is necessary to prove the defence of petitioner in this suit. The learned counsel for Revision petitioner relied on ratio laid down by this Court in D.K.Narasamma Vs. G.Renuka Devi 2012 (2) ALT 675, where in it is held at para 9 at page 3 this Court discussed ratio laid down in decision P.S.Chetty Vs K.E.Reddy 1988 1 ALT 279 where in it is held which reads as under :
" Order 16 Rule 14 CPC provides that the Court may of its own initiating or suo motu cause any person to be examined as a witness though either of the parties did not choose to take steps for summoning such person as a witness. This power obviously intended in the interests of justice is aimed at clarifying certain situations and remove ambiguities and fill up lacuna and thereby further justice. The parties may refrain from summoning a crucial witness in the event of their apprehension of full fledged support and in such a situation the Court may summon such person to give evidence to arrive at the correct factual picture and this witness is called a Court witness. Order 16 Rule 14 visualises that initiative by the Court only to examine any person and it is for the Court to consider of its own accord the necessity of invoking power under this rule without propulsion or application by the parties. The exercise of this Power is in the nature of "self-starter" without extraneous pressure or pull. The Court below while declining to invoke the power appears to have been swayed by consideration that the Court precluded from doing so at the instance of either party. It is true that Court is not obligated to invoke the power at the instance of the parties and the parties have no right to move an application under this rule. But however either of the parties can bring to the notice of the Court the necessity of a Court witness. The parties are not totally barred from bring to the notice of the Court by application or otherwise and the Court is not bound to take action on the averments or allegations contained in the application and it is the sold discretion of the Court. The application by the parties may be considered as passing on the information so that the Court may examine the issue in depth on the facts and circumstances set out in the application and other aspects."
This Court finally held that, Court below can summon the witness mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner there in to 4 give opportunity to the parties to put the necessary questions to the said witness for the purpose of eliciting the truth or other wise of the respective stands taken by the parties. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner prays to allow the petition.
06. Now the issue that emerges for consideration by this court is :-
Whether the orders under challenge is sustainable or tenable and the same warrants any interference of this court under Order 227 of Constitution of India?
Point: -. Before going to the merits of the case it would be beneficial to quote Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC which reads as under:-
Order XVI Rule 14:
Court may of its own accord summon as witnesses strangers to suit: -
Subject to the provisions of this Code as to attendance and appearance and to any law for the time being in force, where the Court at any time thinks it necessary to examine any person, including a party to the suit, and not called as a witness by a party to the suit, the Court may, of its own motion, cause such person to be summoned as a witness to give evidence, or to produce any document in his possession on a day to be appointed, and may examine him as a witness or require him to produce such document.
07. The above referred provision makes it clear that discretion left to the Court to summon any witness as a court witness including a party to the suit whose evidence is necessary to arrive at just conclusion in the lis. This Court in the D.K.Narasamma Vs. G.Renuka Devi case referred supra relied on by learned counsel for Revision petitioner explained under what circumstances summons can 5 be issued to the person as Court witness invoking Order 16 Rule 14 CPC. It is also observed when crucial evidence is withheld by either party Court can summon the said witness to arrive just conclusion in the lis before them. There is no dispute with regard to ratio laid down in the above referred decision and what has to be consider is, whether the ratio laid down in the said decision is applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Trial Judge before registering the petition refused to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of summons to other attestor and scribe of Suit promissory note. The Court below also discussed precedent law which laid down by petitioner in 2008 (2) ALT 329 between Veesam Mohan Reddy Vs. Rebba Peddagaiah and came to conclusion that, the said Judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is no doubt true that before registering petition rejecting the same is bad under law and Court should give opportunity for the petitioner to put forth their case, after giving opportunity to the other side to file a counter and then to decide the petition on merits. Even otherwise, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for Revision petitioner after perusing the facts and circumstances of the present case. The suit is filed by the respondent against plaintiff for recovery of his Promissory note debt dated 25.12.2010 wherein the petitioner herein filed written statement which copy of it made 6 available to this Court. On perusal of page 3 of contents of written statement filed by petitioner which shows that the petitioner herein is not denying borrowing money from the respondent and affixing his thumb impression in the suit promissory note and pleaded that respondent/plaintiff has obtained his thumb impressions in eight (8) blank promissory notes and one of which also created in the name of one Mr.T.Visweswara Rao and then he approached respondent along with Mr.Bora Srinu, Karri Simmayya and Kaki Daleappana to discharge debt of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest which respondent has not turned up. After considering defence of the Revision petitioner as per his written statement, this Court is of an opinion that Court below rightly refused to issue summons to other attestor and scribe of suit promissory note and if petitioner intended to prove his defence before Trial Court he may examine the persons whom he has shown in his written statement if he is so advised. This Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned Trial Judge warrants interference of this court under Order 227 of Constitution of India.
08. In the result the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
7
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
The interim stay if any granted stands vacated.
__________________________ JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER Date :11.11.2022 GRL.
8118 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER CRP.No.814 of 2017 Date : 11.11.2022 GRL.