Krishna Kumar Nayar vs Dadu Ram

The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-1, Korba in Civil Suit No. 13-A/2018 whereby, the application filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff under Order 16 Rule 3 CPC for summoning the Sub-Registrar, Korba as a witness to prove the registered agreement to sale executed on 20.10.2009, has been dismissed.

Ms. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Sub-Registrar is an important witness whose evidence is of much relevance for the proper and fair adjudication of the case but the Petitioner is deprived of the opportunity of adducing the said witness. She further submits that the attesting witnesses have stated differently before the Court below, therefore, the statement of the Sub-Registrar, Korba is necessary, so, she prays to allow the Petition and quash the order impugned.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the Petition.

The Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction on 10.04.2018. Upon being asked, Ms Trivedi fairly submits that the Petitioner/Plaintiff has closed his evidence and the case was kept for the evidence of Defendant and at such stage, on 08.09.2022, the Petitioner/Plaintiff had moved an application under Order 16 Rule 3 CPC stating that the Defendant had denied the execution of the agreement to sale though he has already examined the attesting witnesses Krishna Kumar Nayar (PW-1) and Vishwanath (PW-2) but did not mention the name of other witness i.e. Sub-Registrar, Korba in the list of witnesses, therefore, the said application was filed to issue summons as in the said application filed by the Petitioner, there is no mention about sufficient cause for omission of the name of witness in the list of witnesses and further there is even no mention of the requirement of adducing the said witness as the Plaintiff himself has closed the evidence from his side. The procedural law allows manageable standards of meaningful participation while balancing the cost, time and accuracy when the Petitioner himself closes his evidence and does not state any sufficient cause or need to recall the said witness, therefore, considering the nature of the dispute, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned, which warrants any interference.

Accordingly, the Petition being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed at motion stage.