Rajasthan Agencies Pvt Ltd @APPELLANT@Hash Ram Singh And Ors

Under challenge is the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the trial court dismissing the petitioner-plaintiff’s (hereinafter ‘plaintiff’)

application for summoning of the officers of Karnataka

Bank, Jaipur alongwith copies in original of the draft purportedly got prepared by the plaintiff for payment of the sale consideration to the respondent-

defendant (hereinafter ‘defendant’) pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 21.11.1998 based whereon a suit for specific performance was

filed.

I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order dated 02.11.2017.

The trial court has rightly held in the facts obtaining that there was no occasion to exercise its powers under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC for summoning of

the officers of Karnataka Bank, Jaipur alongwith copies in original of the draft purportedly got prepared by the plaintiff for payment of the sale

consideration to the defendant in terms of the agreement to sell dated 21.11.1998 as it was open for the plaintiff itself to obtain the certified copies of

the draft or the statement in regard thereto from the Karnataka Bank and no effort appeared to have been made on that count. The trial court held

that it was not the function of the court to invoke its power under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC to collect evidence for the plaintiff before it.

Aside of the valid reasoning of the trial court leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff’s application under Oder 16 Rule 6 CPC, I am also of the

considered view that the plaintiff having not disclosed the name of the officers of the bank as his witness/es in terms of Order 16 Rule 1 CPC within

15 days from framing of issues and long thereafter it was not open for it to suddenly invoke Order 16 Rule 6 CPC and seek to summon unnamed

officers of the bank for production of the original drafts purportedly got prepared by it for payment of the sale consideration to the defendant in terms

of the agreement to sell dated 21.11.1998. Proceedings before the trial court cannot be conducted in fits and starts, with a litigant free to deviate from

prescribed procedure on his ipse dixit. Variation in the procedure prescribed for an orderly and expeditious trial can be no doubt be made in the

court’s discretion but only for good reasons and where a bona fides of the applicant are made out, which appear to be absent in the instant case.

Admittedly the underlying suit was filed in the year 2005 in respect of agreement to sell dated 21.11.1998 and the application for summoning of the

officers of bank alongwith the original of the drafts purportedly got prepared by the plaintiff for payment of the sale consideration to the defendant

pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 21.11.1998 was filed about 10 years subsequent.

In the facts of the case, the impugned order dated 02.11.2017 suffers neither perversity nor patent illegality to warrant interference of this court in the

exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It is accordingly dismissed.