Chukka Ramaiah v. Chekuru Bujjiah

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent instituted O.S. No. 62 of 2007 before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nandalur for recovery of certain amounts founded on a promissory note. The petitioner denied the respondent's allegations. At trial, evidence on behalf of the respondent was recorded and the petitioner gave evidence as DW.1. The petitioner sought to examine the scribe of the promissory note as DW.2 and filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination for DW.2.

The petitioner then filed I.A. No. 20 of 2010 under Section 31 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking issuance of summons to DW.2. The respondent opposed the application. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. by order dated 5.02.2010. The petitioner challenged that order by way of the present revision petition. The respondent was served with notice but did not appear. The revision petition was dismissed by the court below.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Section 31 of the Civil Procedure Code permits the Court to issue summons to a witness (DW.2) where the party had earlier secured the witness's presence but is subsequently unable to ensure that presence.
2. Whether the trial Court erred in dismissing I.A. No. 20 of 2010 seeking summons to DW.2 under Section 31 read with Section 151 CPC.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner, through his counsel Sri N. Nagaraju, submitted that DW.2 had initially agreed to depose as a witness regarding his having scribed the promissory note but refused to cooperate after filing the affidavit in lieu of chief examination.
• The petitioner contended that the trial Court possessed ample power to summon DW.2 under the provisions relied upon (Section 31 and Section 151 CPC).

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any opposing or additional arguments advanced by the respondent.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analysed the procedural options available to parties for obtaining attendance of witnesses in the course of trial and explained the scope of Section 31 CPC as applied to witnesses:

1. The Court observed two options available to parties: (a) the party can itself secure the presence of its witnesses and the Court will record their evidence; or (b) where a party cannot secure a witness's presence for one reason or another but requires the Court's assistance, the Court may issue summons to the witness provided the evidence is relevant and necessary.
2. The Court noted that the procedure for service of summons applicable to defendants in a suit is made applicable to witnesses under Section 31 CPC.
3. The Court held that where a party has initially secured the presence of a witness by itself but is subsequently unable to ensure that witness's continued presence, Section 31 CPC does not apply. The Court described issuing summons in such situations as a hybrid exercise—partly relying on the party's procurement and partly on court compulsion—which is impermissible in law.
4. Applying this principle to the present facts, the Court concluded that the trial Court correctly dismissed the petitioner's I.A. No. 20 of 2010 seeking summons to DW.2, and there was no ground for interference in the revision petition.

Holding and Implications

Revision dismissed.

Direct consequences: The revision petition was dismissed and the trial Court's order dismissing I.A. No. 20 of 2010 was upheld. The Court ordered that there shall be no order as to costs.

Broader implications: The opinion affirms the principle, as applied in this case, that Section 31 CPC is not available to summon a witness where the party had previously secured the witness's presence and later seeks court assistance for the same witness. The opinion does not purport to set out any novel precedent beyond this application to the facts of the case.