Order XVI Rule 1 CPC Confers Wider Jurisdiction To Cater A Situation Where Party Failed To Name A Witness

Case: Vijay Singh Vs Lalita Karki & Ors.

Coram: Justice Sindhu Sharma

Case No.: CM(M) No. 51/2022

Court Observation: The advance filing of list of witnesses is necessary because summoning the witnesses by the Court is a time consuming process and to avoid the avoidable delay an obligation is cast on the party to file a list of witnesses whose presence the party desires to procure with the assistance of the Court. But if on the date fixed for recording the evidence, the partyis able to keep his witnesses present despite the fact that the names of the witnesses are not shown in the list filed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 1, the party would be entitled to examine these witnesses and to produce documents through the witnesses who are called to produce documents under Rule 1 of Order XVI”

Previous Posts

Matrimonial Offences Including S.498A IPC May Be Quashed In Exercise Of Powers U/S 482 CrPC When Parties Arrive At Settlement: J&K&L High Court

State Does Not Have Unlimited Resources, Institutions That Waive Arrears To Seek Grant-In-Aid Can’t Be Permitted To Take U-Turn: Uttarakhand HC

Conditions Imposed During Interim Bail U/S 439(1) Cannot Be Construed To Mean “In Custody” While Reckoning Period For Default Bail: J&K&L High Court

Court In Area Where Minor Ordinarily Resides Has Jurisdiction U/S 25 Guardians & Wards Act: Uttarakhand High Court

Property Dispute Between Mother & Child Does Not Fall Under Explanation (c) To S.7(1) Family Courts Act, Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Barred: Kerala High Court

Keywords

Wider Jurisdiction, Order XVI Rule 1 CPC