Bodh Raj vs Jeet Singh

Supervisory Jurisdiction of this Court is being invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for setting aside order dated

06.03.2020 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge/CJM, Kathua in case file No. Civil. Misc./108/2019 titled as Jeet Singh Vs. Bodh Raj.

It is being stated that the defendant-petitioner herein is has been leading evidence before the trial court in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff and

during the said process is stated to have filed an application for summoning the Official witnesses with record. The said application is stated to have

been dismissed in terms of the impugned order (supra) which is stated to have been passed in an unjust and unfair manner. The impugned order is

stated to have been passed by the Trial Court not in accordance with the procedure contained in order 16 CPC read with section 151. The order is

stated to have caused failure of justice and serious prejudice to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have been within his rights to call

the witnesses in question which right is alleged to have be curtailed by the trial Court in terms of the impugned order which is contended to be

erroneous, perverse and unjustified. It is being stated that though the Trial Court allowed the summoning and production of two witnesses out of 6

listed in the application, the rejection of summoning of 4 witnesses by the Trial Court has caused failure of justice, besides being violative of principles

of natural justice.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Perusal of the record reveals that the suit had been instituted by the plaintiffâ€"respondent herein for ejectment from the shops under the tenancy of

the petitioner herein on 30.07.2009. Perusal of the record further reveals that after filing of the written statement by the defendantâ€"petitioner herein

issues came to be settled on 18.02.2010 and that out of 7 issues settled burden to prove issue No. 1 and 2 had been put up upon the defendant and the

burden to prove the rest of the issues had been put upon the plaintiff-respondent herein. Perusal of the record further reveals that w.e.f., 04.06.2012

the plaintiff have had to lead the evidence who appears to have taken 6 years in leading his evidence. The evidence of the plaintiff-respondent stands

closed on 26.04.2018, where after w.e.f., 16.05.2018 the defendant has been leading evidence.

An application has been filed by the defendant/petitioner herein on 27.09.2019 wherein the impugned order (supra) has been passed. In terms of the

application the defendant/petitioner had sought summoning of 6 official witnesses. It is revealed that the defendant-petitioner has been granted 26

opportunities for leading evidence except for the witnesses reflected in the application. Perusal of the record reveals that the application in question

has been filed after a period of more than 9 years after settlement of issues and while availing 27 opportunities, the defendant-petitioner has produced

only 3 witnesses. Perusal of the record reveals that the Trial Court has considered the application in question on the touch stone of law as contained in

Order 16 of CPC and has discussed in detail the relevance and significance of the witnesses sought to be produced. The witness postman sought to be

summoned has not been found to be a witness relevant in the whereas the Patwari Halqa, the Officials of PDD and the Officials of MC Kathua have

been found to be not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Trial Court has even noticed that the defendant petitioner herein,

admittedly, had not filed the list of the said witnesses within the statutory period yet, on analysis as found that for dispensing justice and conducting a

fair trial two witnesses namely Ex-AEE and Official of PDD, Kathua have been allowed to be summoned as witnesses of defendant. The trial court

seemingly has also been oblivious to the fact that the case has been an old one and that the trial and conclusion thereof has been delayed.

The order impugned (supra) is a well reasoned and does not call for any interference. The exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction sought to be invoked

is declined. The petition, is accordingly, dismissed.