Sanjeev Kumar Jain vs. Anuradha And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar Jain, filed a civil suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking possession of premises. The trial Court, vide orders dated 06.05.2025 and 20.05.2025, closed the petitioner's evidence. The petitioner contended that five important witnesses, including three official witnesses (Inspector CGST, Clerk from Registrar of Marriages, and Court Ahlmad), were yet to be examined. Despite depositing diet money and summoning these witnesses, their attendance was not secured by the Court. The petitioner argued that the delay would prejudice them as there was no injunction in their favour. The respondents did not appear to contest the revision petition.
Held
The Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the trial Court's order dated 20.05.2025 to the extent that the petitioner's evidence was closed. The Court found that the trial Court had not considered the provisions of Order 16 Rule 10 CPC and the settled proposition of law that where a party has done all that is in their hand to summon witnesses, the Court must take coercive steps to ensure their attendance. The Court noted that the petitioner had deposited diet money and taken other necessary steps, yet the official witnesses, including the Clerk from the Registrar of Marriage's office, had not appeared despite warrants being issued. The Court held that the impugned order closing evidence was passed without considering this established legal position. The Court granted two effective opportunities to the petitioner to examine the official witnesses (Inspector GST, Clerk from Registrar of Marriage, and Court Ahlmad) with the assistance of the trial Court, which was directed to adopt procedures under Order 16 Rule 10 CPC. Additionally, one effective opportunity was granted to examine the plaintiff and another witness, with the petitioner to produce them on the next date of hearing. The petitioner was also directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the trial Court erred in closing the petitioner's evidence, particularly concerning official witnesses, without exhausting all coercive measures as mandated by Order 16 Rule 10 CPC and settled law? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the trial Court failed to adhere to Order 16 Rule 10 CPC and the principles laid down in "Inder Pal and another vs. Sat Pal (now deceased) through his LRs and others" (CR-3734-2023) and "Piara Singh vs. Smt. Vidhya Wati" (CR-6416-1999). They contended that they had fulfilled their obligations by depositing process fee and diet money, and it was the Court's duty to procure the attendance of recalcitrant official witnesses through coercive steps like warrants. The petitioner sought two effective opportunities with Court help to examine the official witnesses. Revenue/State's arguments: No arguments were recorded for the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 6, Order 16 Rule 10 CPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
judgment
CR-3910-2025
2
further submitted that although the petitioner has got several witnesses examined but five important witnesses are yet to be examined, who are detailed as under:- “(i) Plaintiff-Sanjeev Kumar Jain (ii) Jogender Pal (iii) Aditya Bajaj, Inspector CGST (iv) Clerk, Registrar of Marriages (v) Sanjay Ahlmad Court of Gitanjli Goel”
It is argued that as far as witnesses no.3, 4 and 5 are concerned, they are official witnesses and a perusal of the application dated 11.02.2025 would show that diet money regarding the said witnesses was duly deposited and thereafter the said witnesses were also summoned but as is apparent from the order dated 06.05.2025, one of the summoned witnesses i.e., Clerk from the office of Registrar of Marriage was duly served but he did not choose to appear and fresh warrant of arrest was issued regarding the same but subsequently, in the subsequent zimni orders no further coercive steps were taken to summon the witnesses. It is argued that in the said circumstances, it was incumbent for the Court to have taken all further steps to summon the said official witnesses. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in CR-3734-2023 titled as “Inder Pal and another vs. Sat Pal (now deceased) through his LRs and others” decided on 29.07.2024. It is submitted that the case is now fixed for 28.08.2025 and no defendant Davinder Kumar 2025.07.29 16:45 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment
CR-3910-2025
3
witness has been examined and the petitioner would produce the witnesses no.1 and 2 on the said date and has further prayed that two effective opportunities be granted to the petitioner with Court help to examine official witnesses no.3, 4 and 5. 4. Notice of motion was issued in the present case. As per the report of the Registry, the respondents have been duly served. However, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest the case although the case has been taken up on two occasions.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book.
This Court in the case of Inder Pal (supra) had held as under:- “6.........It is a matter of settled law that as per the provisions of Order 16 Rule 10 CPC, where a witness fails to comply with the summons of the Court and the evidence of the said witness is material, then in such a situation, the Court is required to take coercive steps including issuance of warrants, moreso when the party leading its evidence has done all that is in their hand for summoning them through the Court, which would include deposit of process fee and diet money, as has been done in the present case. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.07.2000 passed in CR-6416-1999 titled as “Piara Singh vs. Smt. Vidhya Wati” had held as under:- “In such circumstances, it was not proper for the trial Court to close the evidence of the petitioner. If a witness in spite of service or in spite of being bound down does not appear, it is for the Court to procure his presence by issuance of warrants but the Court could not take the Davinder Kumar 2025.07.29 16:45 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment
CR-3910-2025
4
extreme step of closing the evidence of the petitioner. It is the duty of the Court to enforce attendance of the witnesses where the party has done everything in that regard and the Court can take recourse to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 10 CPC for compelling the attendance of recalcitrant witnesses.”
The learned trial Court has not considered the said provision and the settled proposition of law, resulting in passing of the impugned orders which deserve to be set aside.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned orders dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) and dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-8) are set aside and the petitioners are permitted to examine the said two witnesses i.e., Gopal Bhushan Sharma and Gulshan Kumar and are granted two effective opportunities for the said purpose with the help/assistance of the trial Court. The trial Court would adopt the procedure for enforcing/securing the presence of the two witnesses in accordance with Order 16 Rule 10 CPC as also the settled law. The same would however be subject to the petitioners depositing with the trial Court an amount of Rs.10,000/- within a period of two weeks from today, which would be paid to the plaintiffs in the present case.”
The law laid down in the above said case fully covers the present case. A perusal of the application dated 11.02.2025 as well as zimni order would show that diet money with respect to the Inspector GST, Clerk, Registrar of Marriage and Sanjay Ahlmad in the Court of Gitanjli Goel (presently Chetesh Gupta), have been duly deposited and other necessary Davinder Kumar 2025.07.29 16:45 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment
CR-3910-2025
5
steps were also taken. A perusal of the zimni order dated 06.05.2025 would show that warrant of arrest issued against the concerned Clerk from the office of Registrar of Marriage, Naraingarh had been received back executed but he had not appeared before the Court and accordingly, fresh warrant of arrest for said witness was issued for the next date of hearing. On the next date of hearing i.e., 20.05.2025 the said witness did not appear but the Court did not adopt coercive methods to summon the said witness or the other two witnesses i.e., Inspector GST and Ahlamd in the Court of Ms.Gitanajli Goel (presently Chetesh Gupta) but on the other hand, vide order dated 20.05.2025 closed the evidence of the petitioner except for the purpose of cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-5. 8. The suit filed by the present petitioner is under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the property in question and it is the case of the petitioner that there is no injunction in favour of the petitioner. Delay if any in the proceedings would primarily prejudice the petitioner. The impugned order dated 20.05.2025 to the extent that the evidence of the petitioner has been closed, has been passed without taking into consideration the abovesaid law laid down in the case of Inder Pal (supra). No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose the present petition filed by the present petitioner.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.05.2025 to the Davinder Kumar 2025.07.29 16:45 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment
CR-3910-2025
6
extent that the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff has been closed by order is set aside with the following directions:- i) The petitioner is granted two effective opportunities to get examined Aditya Bajaj, Inspector GST and Clerk from the office of Registrar of Marriage and Sanjay Ahlmad in the Court of Gitanjli Goel (presently Chetesh Gupta) with the help / assistance of the trial Court. The trial Court would adopt the procedure for securing the presence of the said witnesses under Order 16 Rule 10 CPC as per settled law. ii)
The petitioner is also granted one effective opportunity to examine the plaintiff Sanjeev Kumar Jain and Jogender Pal and for the said purpose, the petitioner would produce the said two witnesses on 28.08.2025, which is stated to be next date of hearing and in case the said two witnesses are produced on the said date of hearing, then their evidence would be taken into consideration and due opportunity would be given to the respondent to cross-examine the said witnesses. iii) The petitioner would deposit Rs.10,000/- as costs on or before 28.08.2025 which amount would be released to respondents no.1 and 2 in equal proportion i.e., Rs.5000/- each.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE July 24, 2025. Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned
Yes/No
Whether reportable
Yes/No Davinder Kumar 2025.07.29 16:45 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.