State Bank of Patiala vs Dharam Pal and Others

A.P. Chowdhri, J.—Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that respondent No. 1 is an officer in the State Bank of Patiala in the category of MMGS-II. Respondents No. 8 to 47 appeared to have been promoted to MMGS-III in persuance of the certain promotion policy. Respondent No. J has instituted a suit which is pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge III Class, Patiala. In the suit, the same respondent has sought a declaration that the promotion policy in question is illegal, null and void and that the promotions of respondents No. 2 to 47 in persuance of the said policy was also illegal and void. He has further sought a declaration that the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) be declared promoted to MMGS-III with effect from 1.8.1990, the date from which the private respondents No. 2 to 47 had been promoted. The Bank is contesting the suit. Issues have been framed. The plaintiff got summoned Mr. Prabhu Dayal, General Manager, (Planning and Development) of the said Bank alongwith guidlines relating to the promotion policy in question. On receipt of the summons, an application was moved on behalf of the said Bank praying that the summons be recalled as Mr. Prabhu Dayal had nothing to do with the case in question. He was not dealing with the promotions etc, and was not looking after the Personnel Department. It was further submitted that the plaintiff had got the summons issued merely to cause harassment and inconvenience to the Bank management in general and Mr. Prabhu Dayal in particular. The application was resisted by respondent No 1. It was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 17.12.1991. Hence this revision.

Notice of the revision was duly served on respondent No. 1. He failed to put in appearance and was proceeded ex parte.

3 Mr. Vijay Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner; made as two-fold submission. Firstly, he contended that the prayer for summoning Mr. Prabhu Dayal was not bonafide and the same was calculated to cause him harassment and inconvenience and secondly the-documents sought to be summoned were not relevant and admissible as the plaintiff had no unlimited right to summon the record relating to the selection of respondents No. 2 to 47.

I have carefully considered the above contentions of the learned counsel.

Sub rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 16 of the CPC contains the general rule with regard to summoning of witnesses. It reads :-

"A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is pro-posed to be summoned".

Rule 6 of the same Order lays down that any person summoned) merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons, if he causes such document to be produced ''instead of attending personally to produce the same. Reference may also be made to Section 151 of the CPC which underlines the inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice and even more significantly to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. A reading together of the above-quoted provisions would show that the Court has ample power to refuse to summon a witness where doing so would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The categoric stand of the petitioner-Bank was that the General Manager sought to be summoned did not have anything to do with the Personnel Department nor was he concerned in ordering the promotion of respondents No. 2 to 47. No case was therefore, made out justifying summoning of a person of the level of General Manager of the Bank especially to produce certain documents. The irresistible inference was that the prayer was not bonafide and the trial Court committed material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. I am supported in taking the above view by a Division Bench judgment in Kumar Basant Narain Singh and Others Vs. The State of Bihar, , rule that ordinarily the Court issues summonses to the witnesses on the application on made for the purpose. It was added that said rule was subject to an exception. The exception was that where the Court thinks that the prayer for issue of summonses to witnesses had not been made bonafide or had been made as an abuse of the process of the Court or the prayer is vexatious, it has got inherent jurisdiction to refuse the prayer. It was observed by the learned Judge that the power was inherent in the jurisdiction of every Court of justice to protect itself from the abuse of its own procedure.

With regard to the relevancy and admissibility of the record learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on M. Papanna v. The Hon''ble Chief Justice, High Court of Karntaka 1989 L I.C. 1841 in which a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court examined the question in great detail and the decision referred to above is highly instruct I am, however, not in proper position to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel with regard to the relevancy, as the details of the record summoned from witness are not available to me. It would therefore, be appropriate to leave the matter open.

For these reasons the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court is set-aside. It is directed that the trial Court shall afford an opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner to be heard with regard to the relevancy and admissibility of the documents sought to be summoned and shall pass appropriate orders according to law. It is made clear that the order summoning Mr. Prabhu Dayal, General Manager, (Planning and Development) has been set-aside and the said witness, in the facts and circumstances of the case shall not be summoned. The question left open is only with regard to the relevancy and admissibility of the document which, if raised, shall be appropriately dealt with according to law.