Lalit vs. Ashok

Held

The High Court held that the trial court had not committed any error in rejecting the petitioner's application. The Court reasoned that the documents sought by the petitioner could be obtained by him through the Right to Information Act or other available modes and produced before the court. The Court further noted that the petitioner had not produced any documents on record to substantiate the need for summoning witnesses along with records; it is only the documents on record that can be marked as exhibits by a witness accompanying the record. The Court also found that the petitioner's reliance on the cited precedents was misplaced, as those cases dealt with summoning witnesses generally and not for the specific purpose of proving documents. Therefore, the trial court's view was considered plausible and not erroneous. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Lalit S/o Umashankar Shrivastava, a defendant in an eviction suit filed by the respondent, Ashok S/o Baburao Ji Vani, challenged an order dated 25.01.2024 passed by the trial court. The petitioner's application under Order 16 Rule 1, 7-A read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to summon witnesses along with records from the GST office and Municipal Corporation, was rejected. The petitioner intended to use these documents to prove that the plaintiff was already operating a business from a different shop, possessing a fruit license and GST number for it. The trial court had observed that such documents could be obtained by the defendant through the Right to Information Act or other means.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application to summon witnesses along with records from the GST and Municipal Corporation, thereby refusing to allow the petitioner to prove that the plaintiff was operating a business from a different shop with a GST number. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the trial court's rejection of the application was erroneous. He contended that the summoned officers would produce copies of documents and mark them as evidence, a course of action he believed was permissible. He relied on decisions from this Court in Gopal Das Renwal V/s. Smt. Deepika Jain and Ramsiya V/s. Anuradha and Others, though these pertained to summoning witnesses generally and not specifically for proving documents. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state. The trial court's reasoning, however, was that the petitioner could obtain the necessary documents from the relevant departments through the Right to Information Act or other modes and produce them in court, deeming it unnecessary to summon government employees and records for this purpose.