Order XVI SUMMONING AND ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS

Order XVI

SUMMONING AND ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS

1. List of witness and summons to witness :-

(1)…….

(2)…….

(3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded,

permit a party to call, whether by summoning

through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than

those whose names appear in the list referred to in

sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for

the omission to mention the name of such witness

in the said list.

9. The above Rule states that the party shall show sufficient cause

for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

****

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4312 of 2017 & 4234 of 2017

Between:

Chunduru Sambasivarao,

S/o Late Venkata Subbaiah,

Aged:55 years, Occ: Cultivation,

R/o D.No.5-45, Gollapudi Village,

Vijayawada Rural Mandal,

Krishna District and one another …. Petitioners

AND

Chunduru Siva Panchakshari,

D/o Late Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about not Known,

R/o.D.No.1-130, 1st cross Road, East Bazaar,

Guntupalli Village & Post,

Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,

Krishna District and another …. Respondents

DATE OF COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED: 09.03.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes / No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No

___________________________

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J

2023:APHC:6791

* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4312 of 2017 & 4234 of 2017

% 09.03.2023

Between:

Chunduru Sambasivarao,

S/o Late Venkata Subbaiah,

Aged:55 years, Occ: Cultivation,

R/o D.No.5-45, Gollapudi Village,

Vijayawada Rural Mandal,

Krishna District and one another …. Petitioners

AND

Chunduru Siva Panchakshari,

D/o Late Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about not Known,

R/o.D.No.1-130, 1st cross Road, East Bazaar,

Guntupalli Village & Post,

Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,

Krishna District and another …. Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr.Naga Praveen Venkayalapati

^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. R.Prasad

 Mr.S.Dilip Jaya Ram

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

2023:APHC:6791

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4312 OF 2017 &

4234 of 2017

COMMON ORDER:

Heard both sides.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit

that the trial Court dismissed the application to reopen the matter,

and permit the plaintiff to adduce further evidence on his side by

issuing summons to the Tashildar and also to produce documents.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the

plaintiff commenced the evidence before the Court on 22.11.2016 and

it was completed on 09.02.2017. Later, defendant evidence was

completed on 05.07.2017.

3. Further, the plaintiff did not assign any satisfactory reason for

not taking steps earlier at the stage, when his evidence was recorded.

4. The plaintiff affidavit filed before the trial Court, would indicate

that he had knowledge about the proceedings before the Tashildar

right from 01.04.2015 and in fact, he was having a copy of the

proceedings issued by the Tashildar.

2023:APHC:6791

// 2 //

5. The plaintiff did not assign any reason, why this application was

not filed earlier at the time when plaintiff evidence was recorded.

6. Rule 3 of Order XVI of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is as under:

Order XVI

SUMMONING AND ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS

1. List of witness and summons to witness :-

(1)…….

(2)…….

(3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded,

permit a party to call, whether by summoning

through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than

those whose names appear in the list referred to in

sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for

the omission to mention the name of such witness

in the said list.

9. The above Rule states that the party shall show sufficient cause

for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list.

10. The revision petitioner in his affidavit filed before the trail Court

did not give any reason much less sufficient cause for the omission to

mention the name of the proposed witness earlier, though he had

knowledge before commencement of his evidence in the year 2017.

11. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality or material

irregularity committed by the trial Court in the impugned order.

2023:APHC:6791

// 3 //

12. Accordingly, this revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

09.03.2023

DMR

2023:APHC:6791

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4312 OF 2017 &

4234 of 2017

09.03.2023

DMR

2023:APHC:6791