Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman Shaikh

Held

The Court held that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the Petitioner's application solely on technical grounds related to Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC. While the Petitioner did not file a list of witnesses at the appropriate stage, the Court found that the reasons provided for seeking summons from the Assistant Commissioner of CGST were sufficient. The Petitioner's attempt to obtain information via RTI and subsequent failure necessitated calling the CGST official to clarify GST registration and invoice validity, which was crucial for the defence. The Court cited *Dinesh Singh Bhim Singh vs. Vinod Shobhraj Gajaria* to emphasize that technical failures should not prevent parties from examining necessary witnesses. However, the prayer to summon the Principal of Jain College of Engineering was rejected as that witness was deemed irrelevant to the dispute. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed and set aside only to the extent it refused the summons for the Assistant Commissioner of CGST.

Facts

The Petitioner, Shri Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 04.05.2026 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco da Gama. The order rejected the Petitioner's application (Exhibit 46) for issuing witness summons to the Principal of Jain College of Engineering and the Assistant Commissioner of CGST. The Petitioner and Respondent had a construction contract, and the Petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,38,673.47 plus interest. The Respondent contested the suit, denying the contract and alleging forged bills. The Petitioner sought to summon the witnesses to verify the Respondent's student status at Jain College and the validity of GST numbers on the bills, as the Respondent allegedly failed to provide this information through other means.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's application for issuing witness summons to the Principal of Jain College of Engineering and the Assistant Commissioner of CGST, filed after the Respondent concluded his evidence, was rightly rejected by the Trial Court under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that failure to file a list of witnesses does not automatically preclude summoning witnesses, especially under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC, which grants wider discretion to the court. They relied on several High Court judgments, including this Court's decisions in *Rajendra Mohanlal Rathi vs. Ramsingh Punjabi & anr.* and *Dinesh Singh Bhim Singh vs. Vinod Shobhraj Gajaria & anr.*, to support the argument that courts should allow summoning witnesses when necessary for a just conclusion. Respondent's contention: The Respondent supported the impugned order, arguing that the Petitioner failed to submit the list of witnesses within the prescribed time and did not provide sufficient reasons for the delay. They contended that the Petitioner could produce witnesses without court assistance and could not insist on court-issued summons, citing Supreme Court decisions such as *Jai Singh & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & anr.* and *Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by Lrs vs. Kumar Vamanrao alias Alok & Ors.*.