Jagannatha Shetty, J.:— This revision petition by defendants 2 and 3 is from an order made on I.A No. VI filed by them before the trial Court in O.S 1998/68 seeking permission of the Court to summon two witnesses on their behalf.
2. The suit against them was on a pronote. One of the issues in the suit was whether the pronote was vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation. The defendants probably began the suit, and closed their evidence on 6th August, 1971. On behalf of the plaintiff-firm, evidence was closed on 20th January, 1973. The case was posted for arguments on 27th January, 1973 on which date the petitioners made an application under Order 10 Rule 1 read with Section 151, C.P.C for summoning two more witnesses on their behalf. The reason given in their affidavit in support of the application, was that they expected the plaintiff to examine certain witnesses, but it did not and therefore, the need arose for summoning the attestors of the suit pronote, viz., H.M Srinivasiah and Anusuya. The trial Court rejected the application stating that defendants should have filed an application for re-opening the case and cannot seek permission for adducing further evidence when once the evidence is completed by both the parties.
3. It seems to me, that the trial Court has misunderstood the scope of Order 16 Rule 1. The said Rule provides that at any time, after the suit is instituted, a party is entitled as of right to take summons to witnesses. The Court, unless holds that the application of the party lacks bona fides cannot refuse to issue summons. The salutary principle behind the said rule is that Court ordinarily should not shut out relevant documents and deny opportunity to any party to summon witnesses. The application of any party cannot be rejected merely because it was presented at a late stage of the proceedings. If there is good reason for not taking summons to witnesses earlier, the Court should not refuse permission, even if the case is already set down for arguments. My view finds support from the decision of this Court in Rudrappa v. Gurikule Thimmaiah(1).
4. In the result, I allow the revision petition, set aside the order impugned and direct the learned Munsiff to permit the defendants to examine the two witnesses who are the attestors to the suit pronote. No costs.