Gopala Krishna Murthy vs B. Ramachander Rao And Ors. on 5 February, 1973
6. I may also refer to Abdul Bari v. Hrishikesh, AIR 1929 Cal 459 where a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court ( B. B. Ghouse and Bose, JJ. ) interpreted Order 16, Rule 1 too liberally. They pointed out that the function of a Civil Court was akin to that of a Post Office and the Court had no power to refuse to issue summons at any stage. The only thing that the Court can do, according to their Lordships, was not to adjourn a case for the production of a witness or production of a document by a witness who is sought to be summoned at a late stage. Hence they pointed out that in such a case the parties get the summons issued at their own risk.