1. Compulsory Attendance —
A Court can oblige the personal attending of any witness residing within the local bounds of its legal power. or without such bounds if the individual to be summoned is at a topographic point. non more than 50 stat mis from the Court house or non more than two 100 stat mis if there is a railroad communicating or public conveyance for 5/6th of distance. provided that he is non exempted under any of the commissariats of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. A provision has been added to Order XVI. Rule 19. Civil Procedure Code in Punjab with the consequence that a Court situate in the State of Punjab may necessitate the personal attending of any witness residing in the State of Punjab or the Union Territory of Delhi. ( High Court Notification No. 60 —General IX Y. 8. dated the 4th March. 1955 ) .

2. Attendance of pardanashin ladies —
Under Section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. adult females. who harmonizing to the imposts and manners of the state. ought non to be compelled to look in public shall be exempt from personal attending in Court.

3. Other freedoms —
The Court has a discretion to relieve from attending as witness any individual who in the sentiment of the Court. is from illness or frailty unable so to go to ( Order XXVI Rule 1. C. P. C. ) . or being a Civil or Military Military officer of the Government. can non go to without hurt to the Public Service ( Order XXVI Rule 4. C. P. C. ) . As respects the attending of Patwaries in Civil Courts Part B of this Chapter should be referred to.

4. Evidence by Commission —
The Court may publish a Commission for the scrutiny of a informant. whose attending can non be compelled harmonizing to jurisprudence. or can non be secured for any other sufficient ground in the fortunes specified in Order XXVI of the Civil Procedure Code.

5. Service of procedures —
The general process for issue of procedures to informants is the same as that in regard of suspects. For elaborate instructions on the topic.

6. Non-attendance. cogent evidence of service—
Where a informant summoned to go to to give grounds or bring forth a papers. fails to go to or to bring forth the papers. without lawful alibi. the Court shall. on return of the service of the biddings. analyze the functioning officer on curse. if his certification has non been verified by affidavit and it may make so even when the certification has already been so verified. to fulfill itself that the biddings was punctually served.

7. Announcement. fond regard and apprehension in instance of non-attendance — The Court. on being satisfied that the individual summoned has deliberately failed to go to or to bring forth the papers in conformity with such biddings without any lawful alibi and that his grounds or the papers is material. may. publish a announcement necessitating him to go to to give grounds or bring forth the papers at a clip and topographic point to be named in this. Or. the Court. may. in lieu thereof. or in add-on to it. publish a warrant. with or without bond. for the apprehension of such individual and may do besides an order for the fond regard of his belongings to such an sum as it deems fit to cover the costs of the fond regard and any all right which may be imposed for his failure to go to. non transcending Rs. 500. ( vide Order XVI. Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 ) .

8. Fine—
Whenever such individual appears and satisfies the Court that he did non. without lawful alibi. neglect to follow with the biddings. the Court release the fond regard or call off the warrant of apprehension. as the instance may be. Where such individual does non look. or appears but fails to fulfill the Court that there was a lawful alibi for his absence. the Court may enforce a all right. non transcending Rs. 500 to be recovered by the fond regard ( if non already effected ) and sale of his belongings ( Order XVI. Rule 12. Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 ) .

9. Party as witness—
It should be noted that. where a party to a suit is required to give grounds or bring forth a papers. the commissariats as to informants use to him. so far as they are applicable.

10. Warrants against Government retainers for non-attendance— The Judges wish to affect upon the Subordinate Courts the desirableness of cautiousness in publishing warrants of apprehension against a individual in Public Service. unless and until the Court is to the full satisfied that he is wilfully excluding to obey the biddings. In most instances it will bring forth the coveted consequence if a notice is issued to the individual at mistake to demo cause why he should non be proceeded against under the penal commissariats of Order XVI and the attending of the superior officer is drawn to the behavior of his subsidiary. Of class. in instances of marked unmanageableness. the Courts can put the jurisprudence in gesture in any one or all of the signifiers. available to them.

11. Non-attendance. responsibility of parties and Courts—
In instances where proper service of biddings has been effected but the witness fail to go to. either through carelessness or in collusion with the party on whose behalf they have been cited. Civil Courts should utilize their powers to take penal action freely. and if parties are unwilling to take coercive action against their ain informants. the issue of any farther biddings through the Court for their attending should be refused. The Court should besides. where necessary. take action themselves against defaulting informants. The commissariats of Order XVI. Rule 16. should be studied and used. and if parties refuse to do an application under Order XVI. Rule 16 ( 2 ) . the Court may decline to allow any farther dissolution.

12. Motivate disposal of witnesses—
When informants are in attending. every attempt should be made to enter their grounds quickly and they should non be required. every bit far as possible. to go to once more at any adjourned hearing. In the instance of business communities and Government retainers. the Court should. if possible. give them some indicant as to the hr when their grounds is likely to be recorded ; so as to avoid their being detained on the Court premises longer than may be necessary.

13. ( a ) Summoning Government retainers to turn out birth or decease entries— In any instance where a party to a suit wishes to turn out the fact of a birth or decease by mention to one of the registries of critical statistics he should be directed in the first case to register a certified transcript of the entry on which he relies. Civil Courts should forbear from citing the clerks of Civil Surgeons? officer with the registries except where their presence is deemed perfectly necessary.

( B ) Municipal records—
Similarly. the Court should non without sufficient grounds summon the original records of Municipal Committees and Property Tax governments where the intent could be served by the production of certified transcripts of these public paperss. Whenever it appears necessary to cite the original records as for case where signatures of a individual on an application or program etc. hold to be proved. the Courts should as a regulation. return the original record to the official bring forthing the same shortly after the informants associating to the papers and nowadays on that hearing have been examined. The original record should non be retained in Court except under exceeding fortunes. such as. where the authorization concerned has declined to give the party a duly certified transcript or where the original papers appears to hold been tempered with.

( degree Celsius ) Agreements with swayers of former Indian States—
In civil suits affecting rights and belongings of Rulers of former Indian States. it frequently becomes necessary to turn out the understandings esteeming their accession to the Indian Union or their amalgamation and integrating into new political units. Such understandings with the Union Government are the Acts of the Apostless of the autonomous authorization and are hence public paperss within clause 1 ( 1 ) of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. These are besides printed in “White Paper on Indian States. ” a Cardinal Government publication and are hence. admissible. under Section 78 ( 1 ) of the Act. These understandings can besides be proved by the production of certified transcripts under Section 77 of the Act. A biddings to the Government of India should hence be avoided where all that is necessary is to turn out the understanding. Apart from the problem and disbursal involved to an officer of the Ministry concerned there is hazard of bad luck to or loss of these valuable paperss. The Courts should non therefore summon the original understandings except in really particular fortunes as. for illustration. where the direct testimony of an officer of the Ministry is necessary to clarify any material point arising in the instance.

RULES VIDE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908

Order 16 Rule 14. Court may at its ain agreement summon as informants aliens to accommodate. Subject to the commissariats of this Code as to attendance and appearance and to any jurisprudence for the clip being in force. where the tribunal at any clip thinks it necessary to analyze any individual. including a party to the suit. and non called as a informant by a party to the suit. the tribunal may. of its ain gesture. cause such individual to be summoned as a informant to give grounds. or to bring forth any papers in his ownership. on a twenty-four hours to be appointed. and may analyze him as a informant or necessitate him to bring forth such papers.

Order 16 Rule 15 Duty of individuals summoned to give grounds or bring forth papers.

Subject as last aforesaid. whoever is summoned to look and give grounds in a suit shall go to at the clip and topographic point named in the biddings for that intents. and whoever is summoned to bring forth a papers shall either go to to bring forth it. or do it to be produced. at such clip and topographic point.

Order 16 Rule 16. When they may go.
( 1 ) A individual so summoned and go toing shall. unless the tribunal otherwise direct. attend at each hearing until the suit has been disposed of. ( 2 ) On the application of either party and the payment through the tribunal of all necessary disbursals ( if any ) . the tribunal may necessitate any individual so summoned and go toing to supply security to go to at the following or any other hearing or until the suit is disposed of and. in default of his trappings such security. may Order him to be detained in the civil prison. HIGH COURT AMENDMENT Delhi. Himachal Pradesh. Punjab. Haryana. Chandigarh. – Add the undermentioned sub-rule ( 3 ) : “ ( 3 ) In the absence of the presiding officer the powers conferred by sub-rule ( 2 ) may be exercised by the Senior Subordinate Judge of the first category exerting legal power at central offices of the territory. or by any Judge or court-official nominated by him for the intent: ( 25. 7. 1938 ) . “Provided that a court-official nominated for the intent shall non order a individual who fails to supply such security as may be required under sub-rule ( 2 ) to be detained in prison but shall mention the instance instantly to the presiding officer on his return. ” ( 23. 1. 1940 ) .

Oder 16 Rule 17. Application of regulations 10 to 13. The commissariats of regulations 10 to 13 shall. so far as they are applicable. be deemed to use to any individual who holding attended in conformity with a biddings departs. without lawful alibi. in dispute of regulation 16.

Order 16 Rule 18. Procedure where informant apprehended can non give grounds or bring forth papers. Where any individual arrested under a warrant is brought before the tribunal in detention and can non. owing to the absence of the parties or any of them. give the grounds or bring forth the papers which he has been summoned to give or bring forth. the tribunal may necessitate him to give sensible bond or other security for his visual aspect at such clip and topographic point as it thinks tantrum. and. on such bond or security being given. may let go of him. and. in default of his giving such bond or security. may Order him to be detained in the civil prison.

Order 16 Rule 19. No informant to be ordered to go to in individual unless occupant within certain bounds. No one shall be ordered to go to in individual to give grounds unless he resides— ( a ) within the local bounds of the court’s ordinary original legal power. or ( B ) without such bounds but at a topographic point less than one hundred or ( where there is railroad or steamer communicating or other established public conveyance for five sixths of the distance between the topographic point where he resides and the topographic point where the tribunal is situate ) less than five 100 kilometres distance organize the tribunal house: Provided that where conveyance by air is available between the two topographic points mentioned in this regulation and the informant is paid the menu by air. he may be ordered to go to in individual. HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS Allahabad. – In Order 16. Rule 19 ( B ) : Insert the words ‘or private conveyance tally for hire” between the words “public conveyance” and “for five-sixths” . and Punjab- Add the undermentioned provision to Govern 19 ( B ) : “Provided that any Court situate in the State of Punjab may necessitate the personal attending of any witness residing in the Punjab or Delhi State. ”

Order 16 Rule 20. Consequence of refusal of party to give grounds when called on by Court. Where any party to a suit nowadays in tribunal garbages. without lawful alibi. when required by the tribunal. to give grounds or to bring forth any papers so and at that place in his ownership or power. the tribunal may articulate judgement against him or do such Order in relation to the suit as it thinks tantrum.

Order 16 Rule 21. Rules as to informants to use to parties summoned. Where any party to a Suit is required to give grounds or to bring forth a papers. the commissariats as to informants shall use to him so far as they are applicable.

High Court AMENDMENTS
Allahabad- Add the undermentioned regulations:
“22. ( 1 ) Save as provided in this regulation and in Rule 2. the Court shall let traveling and other disbursals on the undermentioned graduated table: ( a ) In the instance of informants of the category of agriculturists. labourers. and menials six annas a twenty-four hours ; ( B ) In the instance of informants of a better category. such as zamindars. bargainers. advocates and individuals of matching rank. from eight annas to two rupees a twenty-four hours. as the Court may direct ; and ( degree Celsius ) In the instance of informants of superior rank. including officers of Government in reception of a wage of non less than Rs. 200 a month from three to five rupees a twenty-four hours: Provided that where a Government retainer is summoned to bring forth official paperss or to give grounds of facts which came to his cognition in the discharge of his public responsibilities. he shall be paid traveling and other disbursals at the rates admissible to him as for journeys on circuit in conformity with the going allowance regulations applicable to him. ( 4. 3. 1953 ) . IIIustration

A station office or railroad employee summoned to give grounds is entitled to demand from the party. on whose behalf or at whose case he is summoned. the traveling and other disbursals allowed to informants for the category or rank to which he belongs and in add-on the amount for which he is apt as payment to the replacement officiating during his absence from responsibility. The amount so collectible in regard of the replacement will be certified by the official higher-up of the Witness on a faux pas which the informant will show to the Court from which the biddings issued.

( 3 ) If a informant be detained for a longer period than one twenty-four hours. disbursals of his detainment shall be allowed at such rate. non normally transcending that collectible under clause ( 1 ) of this regulation. as may look to the Court to be sensible and proper: Provided that the Court may. for grounds stated in authorship. let disbursals on a higher graduated table than that hereinbefore prescribed. ( 22. 5. 1915 ) . 23. In instances to which Government is a party. Government retainers whose salary exceeds. – Roentgen. 10 per mensem and all constabulary constables whatever their wage may be who are summoned to give grounds in their official capacity at a Court situated more than five stat mis from their central office. shall be given a certification of attending by the Court in stead of traveling and other disbursals. ” ( 7. 2. 1920 ) . Andhra Pradesh. Assam. Calcutta. Kerala. Madras and Mysore. – Substitute the following— ‘ ( I ) when any party to a suit is required by any other party thereto to give grounds or to bring forth a papers the commissariats as to witness shall use to him so far as applicable. ( two ) when any party to a Suit gives grounds on his ain behalf the Court may. in its discretion license him to include as costs in the suit a amount of money equal to the sum collectible for going and other disbursals to other informants in the instance of similar standing. Order 16A Rule 1. Definitions

In this order—
( a ) ‘detained includes detained under any jurisprudence providing for preventative detainment ; ( B ) ‘prison includes—
( I ) any topographic point which has been declared by the State Government. by general or particular order. to be a subordinate gaol ; and ( two ) any reform school. borstal establishment or other establishment of a similar nature. Order 16A Rule 2. Power to necessitate attending of captives to give grounds. Where ft appears to a tribunal that the grounds of a individual confined or detained in a prison within the State is material in a suit. the tribunal may do an Order necessitating the officer in charge of the prison to bring forth that individual before the tribunal to give grounds: Provided that. if the distance from the prison to the tribunal house is more than twenty five kilometres. no such Order shall be made unless the tribunal is satisfied that the scrutiny of such individual on committee will non be equal.

Order 16A Rule 3. Expenses to be paid into tribunal. ( 1 ) Before doing any Order under regulation 2. the tribunal shall necessitate the party at ‘hose case or for whose benefit the Order is to be issued. to pay into tribunal such amount of money as appears to the tribunal to be sufficient to defray the disbursals of the executing of the order. including the traveling and other disbursals of the bodyguard provided for the informant. ( 2 ) Where the tribunal is low-level to a High Court. see shall be had. in repairing the graduated table of such disbursals. to any regulations made by the High Court in that behalf.

Order 16A Rule 4. Power of province authorities to except certain individuals from the operation of regulation 2. ( 1 ) The State authorities may. at anytime. holding respect to the affairs specified in sub-rule ( 2 ) . by general or particular order. direct that any individual or category of individuals shall non be removed from the prison in which he or they may be confined or detained. and thereupon. so long as the Order remains in force. on Order made under regulation 2. whether before or after the day of the month of the Order made by the State Government. shall hold consequence in regard of such individual or category of individuals. ( 2 ) Before doing an Order under sub-rule ( 1 ) . the State authorities shall hold respect to the undermentioned affairs. viz. : — ( a ) the nature of the offense for which. or the evidences on which. the individual or category of individuals have been ordered to be confined or detained in prison ; ( B ) the likeliness of the perturbation of public Order if the individual or category of individuals is allowed to be removed from the prison ; and ( degree Celsius ) the public involvement. by and large.

Order 16A Rule 5. Military officer in charge of prison to abstain from carryon out Order in certain instances. Where the individual in regard of whom an Order is made under regulation 2— ( a ) is certified by the medical officer attached to the prison as unfit to be removed from the prison by ground of illness or frailty ; or ( B ) Is under commitment for test or under remand pending test or pending a preliminary probe ; or ( degree Celsius ) is in detention for a period which would run out before the termination of the clip required for following with the Order and for taking him back to the prison in which he is confined or detained ; or ( vitamin D ) is a individual to whom an Order made by the State authorities under regulation 4 applies. the officer in charge of the prison shall abstain from transporting out the tribunals Order and shall direct to the tribunal a statement of grounds for so abstaining. Order 16A Rule 6. Prisoner to be brought to tribunal in detention.

In any other instance. the officer in charge of the prison shall. upon bringing of the court’s order. do the individual named therein to be taken to the tribunal so as to be present at the clip mentioned in such order. and shall do him to be kept in detention in or near the tribunal until he has been examined or until the tribunal authorises him to be taken back to the prison in which he is confined or detained.

Order 16A Rule 7. Power to publish committee for scrutiny of informant in prison. ( 1 ) Where it appears to the tribunal that the grounds of a individual confined or detained in a prison. whether within the State or elsewhere in India. is material in a suit but the attending of such individual can non be secured under the predating commissariats of this order. the tribunal may publish a committee for the scrutiny of that individual in the prison in which he is confined or detained. ( 2 ) The commissariats of Order XXVI shall. so far as may be. use in relation to the scrutiny on committee of such individual in prison as they apply in relation to the scrutiny on committee of any other individual.

Civil PROCEDURE CODE. Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to cite on its ain any individual to give grounds or to bring forth any papers in his ownership if the Court is satisfied that the grounds of such informant is necessary to get at a merely decision. The suppliant wanted the test Court to analyze the Chief Executive Officer of Kadapa Zilla Parishad as a informant. with mention to the records maintained by Zilla Parishad refering to the suit agenda belongings. He invoked Rules 6. 7 and 14 of Order 16 C. P. C. The test Court rejected the application on the land that it can non be compelled to analyze a individual as a Court informant. and it is ever for the Court itself to take such stairss. on its ain agreement. In fact. Rule 14 prior to amendment by the Amendment Act 1976. Court had power to cite as informants any individual other than a party to the suit who had non been called as a informant by any party either to give grounds or to bring forth papers. The Rule did non confabulate any express power on the Court to cite a party to the suit as a informant. But after the Amendment. 1976. the Court has been given express power to cite a party to the suit.

Even if a party voluntarily appears in the witness-box to give grounds in his ain favor and intentionally keeps himself off after examination-in-chief and before transverse scrutiny. the Court can non exert its power under the amended Rule besides. ” From the above treatment. what emerges is that. the power under Rule 14 of Order 16 C. P. C. . is to be exercised by a Court. on its ain agreement. and non on the insisting by a party to the suit. Though a party to the suit can put any information. which may affect upon or convert the Court to exert its powers under that proviso. an independent application for that really purpose does non lie. If parties are permitted to do independent application for citing of an person as a Court informant and are conferred with the right to take a firm stand the Court to submit their petition. it may take to several complications. It can be used as a device to get the better of their inability or failure to cite a informant. and in certain instances. to make full up the blank in the grounds. which is already on record.

That was ne’er the purpose of the Parliament. If a party wants a peculiar single be summoned or examined as informant. it must hold resort to Govern 1 and 1-A of Order 16 C. P. C. ORDERS OF VARIOUS COURTS The suppliant filed O. S. No. 1198 of 2006 in the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge. Kadapa against respondent No. 1 herein for the alleviation of declaration of rubric and ageless injunction in regard of the suit agenda belongings. Thereafter. respondent No. 1 got herself impleaded and made claim vis-vis the suit agenda belongings. Issues were framed and the test of the suit commenced. During the class of her grounds. respondent No. 2 stated that the suit agenda belongings has accrued to her hubby by manner of exchange with Kadapa Zilla Parishad. In a manner. she has projected independent rubric in regard of the belongings. The suppliant filed I. A. No. 648 of 2010 under Rules 6. 7 and 14 of Order 16 C. P. C. with a supplication to cite the Chief Executive Officer of Kadapa Zilla Parishad as a informant to bring forth the records and paperss mentioned in this and to talk about them. The application was opposed by the respondents. Through order. dated 22. 09. 2010. the test Court dismissed the I. A. It was observed that Rule 14 of Order 16 C. P. C. does non confabulate right upon a party to necessitate the Court to cite or analyze a individual as a Court informant. The same is challenged in this alteration.

Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri. learned advocate for the suppliant. submits that though Rules 6 and 7 of Order 16 C. P. C. may non purely use to the facts of the instance. it was competent. if non. obligatory for the test Court to cite a informant on an application made by a party to the suit. in instance. the necessity to cite the informant is established. He contends that one time answering No. 2 has stated that the suit agenda belongings stood transferred in favor of her hubby on an exchange by Kadapa Zilla Parishad. confirmation of records maintained by it and the scrutiny of the informants become necessary. Puting trust upon the judgements rendered by this Court in Kosuru Kalinga Maharaju Vs. Kosuru Kaikamma1 and Veesam Mohan Reddy Vs. Rebba Pedda Agaiah. the erudite advocate submits that the position taken by the test Court can non be sustained in jurisprudence. The suppliant wanted the test Court to analyze the Chief Executive Officer of Kadapa Zilla Parishad as a informant. with mention to the records maintained by Zilla Parishad refering to the suit agenda belongings. He invoked Rules 6. 7 and 14 of Order 16 C. P. C. The test Court rejected the application on the land that it can non be compelled to analyze a individual as a Court informant. and it is ever for the Court itself to take such stairss. on its ain agreement.

Order 16 C. P. C. trades with the evocation and attending of informants. Rule 1 thereof authorizations that the parties shall subject a list of informants. whom they propose to analyze. to give grounds or to bring forth paperss. within 15 yearss from the day of the month on which the issues are settled. In instance a party is of the position that it can non secure the presence of a informant. whom he intends to analyze. he can register an application for obtaining biddings for guaranting attending of such informant. Sub-rule ( 3 ) enables the Court to allow a party to name a informant. though his name does non look in the list of informants mentioned in sub-rule ( 1 ) . provided sufficient cause for skip is shown. Rule 1-A was added through amendment of the twelvemonth 1976. enabling the parties to analyze a informant without using for biddings under Rule 1. This. in brief. is the installation created for the parties to the suit in the affair of analyzing the informants. Rule 6 of Order 16 C. P. C. enables a party to bespeak the Court. to cite a individual merely to bring forth a papers. without the necessity of any deposition. Rule 7 on the other manus empowers the Court to necessitate a individual. who is present in the Court. to give grounds or to bring forth paperss. that are in his ownership or power.

Though the suppliant invoked these two Rules. none of them are relevant for the supplication made by him. in the I. A. Rule 14 of Order 16 C. P. C. . upon which accent is laid. reads as under: “14. Court may of its ain agreement summon as informants aliens to suit: – Subject to the commissariats of this Code as to attendance and appearance and to any jurisprudence for the clip being in force. where the Court at any clip thinks it necessary to analyze any individual. including a party to the suit and non called as a informant by a party to the suit. the Court may. of its ain gesture. cause such individual to be summoned as a informant to give grounds. or to bring forth any papers in his ownership. on a twenty-four hours to be appointed. and may analyze him as a informant or necessitate him to bring forth such papers. ” The header of the Rule makes it amply clear that the power to cite aliens to a suit. as informant is to be exercised by the Court “on its ain accord” . This thought is farther strengthened by the phrases. “where the Court at any clip thinks” and “the Court may. of its ain motion” . happening in the organic structure of the proviso. This is non an case of the assistance of heading being taken to spread out or curtail the significance of the proviso.

In fact. both are at harmoniousness. with each other. It is non uncommon that certain powers which are conferred upon the Court to take a peculiar measure either by itself or at the case of the parties to the proceedings. In such instances. the commissariats itself would be clear ; Section 152 C. P. C. can be taken as an illustration in this respect. It reads as under: “152. Amendment of judgements. edicts or orders: Clerical or arithmetical errors in judgements. edicts or orders or mistakes originating therein from any inadvertent faux pas or skip may at any clip be corrected by the Court either of its ain gesture or on the application of any of the parties. ” Exercise of power by the Court on its ain agreement every bit good as. at the case of parties would besides be possible where. the linguistic communication of the proviso is non so clear on this facet. For case. Rule 11 of Order 7 C. P. C. . which provides for rejection of plaint. contains a phrase “the plaint shall be rejected in the undermentioned cases” . Though it is non mentioned as to whether it is the sole privilege of the Court to exert such power. or whether it can be exercised at the case of the parties ; in pattern. it is both. Much. therefore. would depend upon the text of the proviso. Rule 14 of Order 16 C. P. C. . licenses of no uncertainty. as to its intent. It confers sole power upon the Court.

The power can be exercised merely when the Court feels to make so. irrespective of the stance. which the parties may take on the affair. Way back in 1936. the Privy Council. in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor explained as to commissariats of jurisprudence must be understood. It was with mention to Section 164 of Cr. P. C. . as it so stood. in the context of the discretion of the Court. to enter a confession. Their Lordships held. ‘Whether a Magistrate records any confession is a affair of responsibility and discretion and non of duty. The regulation which applies is a different and non less good recognized regulation. viz. . that where a power is given to make a certain thing in a certain manner. the thing must be done in that manner or non at all. Other methods of public presentation are needfully forbidden’ . This was quoted with blessing in Ballabhdas Agarwal v. J. C. Chakravarty. and the effect of it was mentioned in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Girdharlal Motilal. as under: “The Legislature has prescribed a manner for exerting of that power and hence that power can be exercised merely in that mode and in no other mode. ” The observations of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court are really much relevant in understanding the range of Rule 6 of Order 16 C. P. C.

To be precise. the Court must experience that notwithstanding the fact that the parties have adduced grounds. there are certain facets which become necessary for effectual adjudication of the difference. It may be for the intent of fulfilling itself as to the legality of the claim even where the parties did non confer the attending. or in relation to the facts. that have a bearing upon its really legal power. The ground is that if the cause before the Court is such that it lacks the legal power to judge it. and the suspect in the suit or for that affair. the complainant did non confer their attending to it. the really act of entertaining the suit ; may go indefensible. For this intent. the tribunal may take to analyze any individual other than the informants that are already examined and enlighten itself. on some of the of import facets. This is merely an illustration. The inquiry of a party invoking such a power. which is to be exercised by the Court on its ain agreement. does non originate. It now. demands. to be seen as to how this proviso. was either taken or understood. over the old ages.

In P. S. Chetty v. K. E. Reddy. this Court held: “Order 16 Rule 14 CPC provides that the tribunal may of its ain enterprise or suo motu cause any individual to be examined as a informant though either of the parties did non take to take stairss for citing such individual as a informant. This power evidently intended in the involvement of justness is aimed at clear uping certain state of affairss and take ambiguities and make full up blank and thereby farther justness. The parties may forbear from citing a important informant in the event of their apprehensiveness of full fledged support and in such a state of affairs the tribunal may cite such individual to give grounds to get at the right factual image and this informant is called a ‘court witness’ . Order 16 Rule 14 visualises the enterprise by the tribunal merely to analyze any individual and it is for the tribunal to see of its ain agreement the necessity of raising power under this regulation without propulsion or application by the parties. The exercising of this power is in the nature of “self-starter” without immaterial force per unit area or pull. ” Having said this. the High Court proceeded to detect that the Court is non obliged to raise the power under that proviso at the case of the parties.

However. a rider was added to the consequence that an application filed by the parties raising such a proviso can be treated as a device of go throughing on the information. which may assist the Court in organizing an sentiment. whether or non to exert its power under Rule 14 of Order 16 C. P. C. The relevant part reads: “It is true that the tribunal is non obligated to raise the power at the case of the parties and the parties have no right to travel an application under this regulation. But nevertheless either of the parties can convey to the notice of the tribunal the necessity for analyzing any individual as tribunal informant. On such application the tribunal may scan the entirety of facts and fortunes apart from the state of affairss projected by the parties and arrive at an independent decision as to the necessity of a tribunal informant. The parties are non wholly barred from conveying to the notice of the tribunal by application or otherwise and the tribunal is non bound to take action on the assertions or allegations contained in the application and it is the exclusive discretion of the tribunal.

The application by the parties may be considered as go throughing on the information so that the tribunal may analyze the issue indepth on the facts and fortunes set out in the application and other facets. ” However. in subsequent judgements. this case in point was understood. as though the parties to the suit can take a firm stand on scrutiny of an person as a Court informant. under Order 16 of Rule 14 C. P. C. The judgement in Kosuru Kalinga Maharaju’s instance is one such. It was observed ; “A reading of the above proviso would go forth no uncertainty in the head to state that either party to the suit proceedings can cite individual including a party to the suit who is non called as a informant by a party to the suit. as a informant. Legislature has felt the demand for a direct proviso enabling the tribunal to cite a party for giving grounds as a informant to assist controling the malpractice of a party non looking as a informant and coercing the other party to name him as a informant. and judge the issues decently. What is laid down in the above proviso is that if the Court is satisfied about such a necessity to do any individual to be examined as a informant. Court can cite such individual as a informant. The accent is laid on the subjective satisfaction of the Court. However. this power is to be exercised by the Courts conservatively and non as a affair of modus operandi. ”

Similarly. in Vessam Mohan Reddy’s instance. though no mention was made to the judgement in P. Subrahmanyam Chetty’s instance. or any other case in point. the undermentioned observation was made: “As could be seen. Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to cite on its ain any individual to give grounds or to bring forth any papers in his ownership if the Court is satisfied that the grounds of such informant is necessary to get at a merely decision. The said power includes to cite even a party to the proceeding. Though the linguistic communication of Rule 14 shows that such discretion has to be exercised by the tribunal at its ain gesture. the jurisprudence is well-settled that such a power can be exercised even on an application made by a party to the proceedings. since the application if any. can be taken as an information to the Court. ” It is disposed to mention to the judgement of the Privy Council in Agha Mir Ahmad v. Mudassir Shaw. In that instance. which arose out of a suit for declaration. the complainant invoked the legal power of the test Court. under Order 16 Rule 14 C. P. C. . to cite a informant was omitted during the test.

That application was filed after both the parties closed their grounds. The test Court rejected the application with the undermentioned observation: “I have considered this inquiry carefully and am of sentiment that it would be earnestly damaging to the defendants’ instance to acknowledge this informant at this phase. I do non see that it is the responsibility of the Court to rectify an skip by a party to the suit which may be knowing or if non. must be due to pretermit. ” One of the evidences urged in the entreaty before the Privy Council was. as to the rightness of the observation made by the test Court. on the intent of Rule 14 of Order 16 C. P. C. Their Lordships of the Privy Council held ; ‘In the fortunes the Courts below were right in non submiting to the petition of the plaintiff in errors to analyze Mt. Faruq. whether their skip to analyze her was knowing or due to pretermit. The power of the Court under O. 16. R. 14. Civil P. C. . to analyze informants on its ain gesture is discretional. ”

In Varadharajan v. Saravanan8. the Madras High Court has this to state about Rule 14 of Order 16 C. P. C. “Para-7: Even in this regulation. the power of the Court to analyze the informants on his ain gesture. is discretional. Ordinarily it is for the party to cite the informants necessary for his instance and when the party has done everything in that respect. it is the responsibility of the Court to implement their attending. Merely when it appears to the Court that the grounds of a peculiar informant is necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit. so merely the Court may procure suo motu the attending of such informant. This discretional power under this Rule should non be used to assist a party to surge over a existent trouble in analyzing that informant. When neither side has summoned the stuff informant to give grounds. the Curt is justified in declining to name him as a Court informant after closing of grounds.

Para-8: In fact. Rule 14 prior to amendment by the Amendment Act 1976. Court had power to cite as informants any individual other than a party to the suit who had non been called as a informant by any party either to give grounds or to bring forth papers. The Rule did non confabulate any express power on the Court to cite a party to the suit as a informant. But after the Amendment. 1976. the Court has been given express power to cite a party to the suit. Even if a party voluntarily appears in the witness-box to give grounds in his ain favor and intentionally keeps himself off after examination-in-chief and before transverse scrutiny. the Court can non exert its power under the amended Rule besides. ” From the above treatment. what emerges is that. the power under Rule 14 of Order 16 C. P. C. . is to be exercised by a Court. on its ain agreement. and non on the insisting by a party to the suit.

Though a party to the suit can put any information. which may affect upon or convert the Court to exert its powers under that proviso. an independent application for that really purpose does non lie. If parties are permitted to do independent application for citing of an person as a Court informant and are conferred with the right to take a firm stand the Court to submit their petition. it may take to several complications. It can be used as a device to get the better of their inability or failure to cite a informant. and in certain instances. to make full up the blank in the grounds. which is already on record. That was ne’er the purpose of the Parliament. If a party wants a peculiar single be summoned or examined as informant. it must hold resort to Govern 1 and 1-A of Order 16 C. P. C.

Bibliography

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawzonline. com/bareacts/civil-procedure-code/orderXVI-code-of-civil-procedure. htm

hypertext transfer protocol: //delhihighcourt. nic. in/writereaddata/upload/CourtRules/CourtRuleFile_XU7A6U42. PDF

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawzonline. com/bareacts/civil-procedure-code/orderXVIA-code-of-civil-procedure. htm

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. advocatekhoj. com/library/bareacts/codeofcivilprocedure/orderXVI. php? Title=Code % 20of % 20Civil % 20Procedure. % 201908 & A ; STitle=Summoning % 20And % 20Attendance % 20Of % 20Witnesses