Khalid Ahmed Vs. Sarwar Ahmed Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1127432
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
AppellantKhalid Ahmed
RespondentSarwar Ahmed Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav
Excerpt:
1 w.p. no. 20673 of  2013 10.2.2014 shri a.k. lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioners.heard on admission. this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india  is   directed   against   the   order   dated   19.8.2013;   whereby,   an  application filed by petitioner under section 151, code of civil  procedure,   1908   for   summoning   certain   witnesses   from   the  office   of   municipal   corporation,   nazul   officer,   nazul   office,  bhopal, thana incharge, police station shahjahanbad, bhopal,  mohd.   shahab,   nasim   uddin,   maruf   khan,   mohan   shukla,  advocate and vikar ahmad khan; has been rejected. the suit is for declaration and permanent injunction in  respect of house bearing no. 33/1 situated near yakub khan ki  maszid,   ali   manzil   road,   shahjahanbad,   bhopal   and   for   a  declaration  that   hibanama   dated   15.10.1998   as   null  and  void  and that no right accrues therefrom in favour of defendants. during pendency of the suit, as evident from material on  record, petitioner/plaintiff filed three affidavits under order 13  rule   4   of   the   code   of   civil   procedure,   1908   to   examine   as  witnesses   on   his   behalf.     later   on   the   petitioner   filed   an  application under section 151 cpc   for   summoning   certain  persons  as  witnesses.   trial court rejected the  application by  impugned order stating: "/kkjk & 151 o;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk **vkbz0,0dz0&04** 2 bl vkns'k }kjk oknhx.k dh vksj ls izlrqr vkosnu i= varxzr /kkjk&151 o;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk **vkbz0,0dz0&04 fnukad 29-01-13 dk fujkdj.k fd;k tk jgk gs a bl vkosnu i= esa ;g dgk x;k gs fd oknh dh vksj ls lk{; lwph izlrqr dh xbz gs ftlds vuqlkj uxjfuxe hkksiky dh hkou vuqkk 'kk[kk ls ,u0lh0 74&41 &42012 fnukad 20-04-12 dk vfhkys[k].utwy vf/kdkjh ds }kjk vukifrr izdj.k dzekad&103@utwy@ch&121@07&08 fnukad 23-08-08 dk vfhkys[k ls;~;n vfjq ,oa [kkfyn vgen }kjk fkkuk izhkkjh 'kkgtgkwukckn hkksiky ds le{k izlrqr vkosnu i= fnukad 20-04-12 dh dk;zokgh ,oa i{kdkjksa }kjk izlrqr nlrkostksa dh izfrfyfi cqykbz tkosa rfkk lk{kh 'kkgkc firk gkth vcnqy yrhq ulhemn~nhu firk ft;k mn~nhu ek:q [kku].eksgu 'kqdyk ,oa fodkj vgen [kkw dks lk{; ds fy;s vkgwr fd;k tk;s a md.vkosnusa i= dk fojks/k djrs gq, izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls izlrqr tokc esa dgk x;k gs fd oknhx.k }kjk vkosn u i= esa fn;s x;s xokgksa ds uke ds rhu xokgksa ds 'kifk i= izlrqr fd;s tk pqds gsaa 'ks"k xokgksa dks fdl laca/k esa rfkk d;ksa cqyk;k tkuk vko';d gs bldk dksbz myys[k vkosnu i= esa ugha gsa md.vkosnu i= lk{; frffk fu/kkzj.k ds iwoz izlrqr fd;k tkuk fkk tks oknh ljk{; dh lversus ij is'k fd;k x;k gsa vr% fujlr fd;k tk;s a mhk;i{k dks lquk x;k a vfhkys[k dk ifj'kkhyu fd;k x;k a izlrqr vkosnu i= esa oknhx.k dh vksj ls hkksiky esa hkou vuqkk 'kk[kk vksj utwy vf/kdkjh ds u;k;ky; ls ftu izdj.kksa dks cqyk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gs mudh izekf.kr izfrfyfi d;ksa is'k ugha dh tk ldrh bldk dksbz myys[k vkosnu i= esa ugh gs a fkkuk izhkkjh 'kkgtgkwukckn dks fn;s vkosnu i= fnukad 29-04-12 dks cqykus ls bl izdj.k ds fujdj.k esa d;k enn feysxh bldk hkh dksbz myys[k vkosnu i= esa ugha gs ek:q [kku].eks0 'kkgkc eksgu 'kqdyk ds eq[; ijh{k.k oknhx.k dh vksj ls is'k fd;s tk pqds gs a vu; lk{+khx.k d;k fl) djsaxs bldk myys[k vkosnu i= esa ugha gs a ,slh flfkfr esa oknh dh vksj ls 3 vkosnu i= esa ukfer lk{khx.k ,oa vfhkys[k dks vkgwr djus ds laca/k esa ;g vkosnu i= lohdkj ;ksx; u gksus ls fujlr fd;k tkrk gs a" order   16   code   of   civil   procedure   1908   deals   with  summoning and attendance  of witnesses.   rule 1 of order 16  stipulates: 1. list of witnesses and summons to witnesses.­ (1)  on or before such date as the court may appoint,  and   not   later   than   fifteen   days   after   the   date   on  which   the   issues   are   settled,   the   parties   shall  present   in   court   a   list   of   witnesses   whom   they  propose   to   call   either   to   give   evidence   or   to  produce   documents   and   obtain   summonses   to  such   persons   for   their   attendance   in   court. (2) 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 proposed to be summoned.  (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   sub­rule   (1).  if   such   party   shows   sufficient  cause   for   the   omission   to   mention   the   name   of  such witness in the said list.  (4)   subject   to   the   provisions   of   sub­rule   (2),  summonses   referred   to   in   this   rule   may   be  obtained  by   the   parties  on   an  application  to   the  court or to such officer as may be appointed by the  court in this behalf within five days of presenting  the list of witnesses under sub­rule (1).apparent it is from sub­rule (2) of rule 1 order 16 cpc  that obligatory it is on the party of 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   proposed   to   be   summoned.     in   the   case   at   hand  4 evidently application under section 151 cpc has been filed and  the reasons stated in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the applications  are: 5 ;g fd izfroknh dzekad 1 us izfroknh dzekad 2 ds i{k esa fnukad 05-09-2011 dks rfkkdffkr :i ls fodz; i= fu"ikfnr fd;k gs tks fd dffkr fgckukek fnukad 15-10-98 ij vk/kkfjr gs a tcfd oknksrrj esa o"kz2007ds fgck ds hkh vfhkopu fd;s gs a6;g fd izfroknh dzekad 1 us uxj fuxe ,oa utwy dk;kzyl; esa oknxzlr leirrh ds laca/k esa dk;zokfg;ksa dh gs a ftuesa o"kz2007ds fgck dk dksbz gokyk ;k fooj.k ugha gs a ;fnn o"kz2007esa dksbz fgck fd;k x;k gksr.rks md.dk;zokfg;ksa esa fooj.k fn;k x;k gksr.a7;g fd o"kz2007esa fd;s x;s fgck ds [k.mu ds fy;s oknhx.k dh vksj ls lacaf/kr vfhkys[k ,oa lk{kh dks vkgwr fd;s tkus gsr.fuosnu fd;k x;k fkk a thus,   no   clear   reasons   having   been   assigned   by   the  petitioner seeking attendance of persons mentioned therein the  trial   court,   in  the   considered  opinion  of   this   court   was   well  within its jurisdiction in rejecting the application.  there being  no   jurisdictional   error   in   the   impugned   order,   rejecting   the  application under order 151 cpc no interference is caused. consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.    (sanjay yadav) judge vivek tripathi
Judgment:

1 W.P. No. 20673 Of  2013 10.2.2014 Shri A.K. Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on admission.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India  is   directed   against   the   order   dated   19.8.2013;   whereby,   an  application filed by petitioner under Section 151, Code of Civil  Procedure,   1908   for   summoning   certain   witnesses   from   the  office   of   Municipal   Corporation,   Nazul   Officer,   Nazul   Office,  Bhopal, Thana Incharge, Police Station Shahjahanbad, Bhopal,  Mohd.

  Shahab,   Nasim   Uddin,   Maruf   Khan,   Mohan   Shukla,  Advocate and Vikar Ahmad Khan; has been rejected.

The suit is for declaration and permanent injunction in  respect of house bearing No. 33/1 situated near Yakub Khan ki  Maszid,   Ali   Manzil   Road,   Shahjahanbad,   Bhopal   and   for   a  declaration  that   Hibanama   dated   15.10.1998   as   null  and  void  and that no right accrues therefrom in favour of defendants.

During pendency of the suit, as evident from material on  record, petitioner/plaintiff filed three affidavits under Order 13  Rule   4   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   to   examine   as  witnesses   on   his   behalf.

    Later   on   the   petitioner   filed   an  application under Section 151 CPC   for   summoning   certain  persons  as  witnesses.   Trial Court rejected the  application by  impugned order stating: "/kkjk & 151 O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk **vkbZ0,0dz0&04** 2 bl vkns'k }kjk oknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu i= varxZr /kkjk&151 O;ogkj izfdz;k lafgrk **vkbZ0,0dz0&04 fnukad 29-01-13 dk fujkdj.k fd;k tk jgk gS A bl vkosnu i= esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd oknh dh vksj ls lk{; lwph izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftlds vuqlkj uxjfuxe Hkksiky dh Hkou vuqKk 'kk[kk ls ,u0lh0 74&41 &42012 fnukad 20-04-12 dk vfHkys[k].utwy vf/kdkjh ds }kjk vukifRr izdj.k dzekad&103@utwy@ch&121@07&08 fnukad 23-08-08 dk vfHkys[k lS;~;n vfjQ ,oa [kkfyn vgen }kjk Fkkuk izHkkjh 'kkgtgkWukckn Hkksiky ds le{k izLrqr vkosnu i= fnukad 20-04-12 dh dk;Zokgh ,oa i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr nLrkostksa dh izfrfyfi cqykbZ tkosa rFkk lk{kh 'kkgkc firk gkth vCnqy yrhQ ulhemn~nhu firk ft;k mn~nhu ek:Q [kku].eksgu 'kqDyk ,oa fodkj vgen [kkW dks lk{; ds fy;s vkgwr fd;k tk;s A Md.vkosnusa i= dk fojks/k djrs gq, izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr tokc esa dgk x;k gS fd oknhx.k }kjk vkosn u i= esa fn;s x;s xokgksa ds uke ds rhu xokgksa ds 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;s tk pqds gSaA 'ks"k xokgksa dks fdl laca/k esa rFkk D;ksa cqyk;k tkuk vko';d gS bldk dksbZ mYys[k vkosnu i= esa ugha gSA Md.vkosnu i= lk{; frfFk fu/kkZj.k ds iwoZ izLrqr fd;k tkuk Fkk tks oknh ljk{; dh Lversus ij is'k fd;k x;k gSA vr% fujLr fd;k tk;s A mHk;i{k dks lquk x;k A vfHkys[k dk ifj'kkhyu fd;k x;k A izLrqr vkosnu i= esa oknhx.k dh vksj ls Hkksiky esa Hkou vuqKk 'kk[kk vkSj utwy vf/kdkjh ds U;k;ky; ls ftu izdj.kksa dks cqyk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gs mudh izekf.kr izfrfyfi D;ksa is'k ugha dh tk ldrh bldk dksbZ mYys[k vkosnu i= esa ugh gS A Fkkuk izHkkjh 'kkgtgkWukckn dks fn;s vkosnu i= fnukad 29-04-12 dks cqykus ls bl izdj.k ds fujdj.k esa D;k enn feysxh bldk Hkh dksbZ mYys[k vkosnu i= esa ugha gS ek:Q [kku].eks0 'kkgkc eksgu 'kqDyk ds eq[; ijh{k.k oknhx.k dh vksj ls is'k fd;s tk pqds gS A vU; lk{+khx.k D;k fl) djsaxs bldk mYys[k vkosnu i= esa ugha gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa oknh dh vksj ls 3 vkosnu i= esa ukfer lk{khx.k ,oa vfHkys[k dks vkgwr djus ds laca/k esa ;g vkosnu i= Lohdkj ;ksX; u gksus ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A" Order   16   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   1908   deals   with  summoning and attendance  of witnesses.   Rule 1 of order 16  stipulates: 1. List of witnesses and summons to witnesses.­ (1)  On or before such date as the court may appoint,  and   not   later   than   fifteen   days   after   the   date   on  which   the   issues   are   settled,   the   parties   shall  present   in   court   a   list   of   witnesses   whom   they  propose   to   call   either   to   give   evidence   or   to  produce   documents   and   obtain   summonses   to  such   persons   for   their   attendance   in   court.

(2) 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 proposed to be summoned.  (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   sub­rule   (1).  if   such   party   shows   sufficient  cause   for   the   omission   to   mention   the   name   of  such witness in the said list.  (4)   Subject   to   the   provisions   of   sub­rule   (2),  summonses   referred   to   in   this   rule   may   be  obtained  by   the   parties  on   an  application  to   the  court or to such officer as may be appointed by the  court in this behalf within five days of presenting  the list of witnesses under sub­rule (1).Apparent it is from sub­rule (2) of Rule 1 Order 16 CPC  that obligatory it is on the party of 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   proposed   to   be   summoned.

    In   the   case   at   hand  4 evidently application under Section 151 CPC has been filed and  the reasons stated in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the applications  are: 5 ;g fd izfroknh dzekad 1 us izfroknh dzekad 2 ds i{k esa fnukad 05-09-2011 dks rFkkdfFkr :i ls fodz; i= fu"ikfnr fd;k gS tks fd dfFkr fgckukek fnukad 15-10-98 ij vk/kkfjr gS A tcfd oknksRrj esa o"kZ2007ds fgck ds Hkh vfHkopu fd;s gS A6;g fd izfroknh dzekad 1 us uxj fuxe ,oa utwy dk;kZyl; esa oknxzLr lEiRrh ds laca/k esa dk;Zokfg;ksa dh gS A ftuesa o"kZ2007ds fgck dk dksbZ gokyk ;k fooj.k ugha gS A ;fnn o"kZ2007esa dksbZ fgck fd;k x;k gkSr.rks Md.dk;Zokfg;ksa esa fooj.k fn;k x;k gkSr.A7;g fd o"kZ2007esa fd;s x;s fgck ds [k.Mu ds fy;s oknhx.k dh vksj ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k ,oa lk{kh dks vkgwr fd;s tkus gSr.fuosnu fd;k x;k Fkk A Thus,   no   clear   reasons   having   been   assigned   by   the  petitioner seeking attendance of persons mentioned therein the  Trial   Court,   in  the   considered  opinion  of   this   Court   was   well  within its jurisdiction in rejecting the application.  There being  no   jurisdictional   error   in   the   impugned   order,   rejecting   the  application under Order 151 CPC no interference is caused.

Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.

   (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi