2022 (1) TMI 70 - HC - Customs

Summoning of witnesses - Refusal of summon of some of the witnesses as mentioned in the schedule of the petition through Court process - production of documents more-fully described therein - HELD THAT - The procedure provided in the Code are for definite purpose to make the system of delivery of justice hassle free and smooth. Any deviation in the prescribed procedure may lead to miscarriage of justice. It cannot, of course, be denied that the procedure is a handmaid of justice. Procedure laid down in the Code should not be utilised to obstruct freeflow of justice, if the provisions made in Civil Procedure Code are strictly followed. Thus, in every case, a party seeking deviation from prescribed procedure must show that it will cause prejudice and obstruct free flow of justice if the procedure prescribed are strictly followed. In the case at hand no such case is made out by the Petitioners. Further, no material has been placed before this Court to show that the documents sought to be called for from Defendant No.6 are at all relevant for proper adjudication of the case. No ground whatsoever has been taken in the petition under Order XVI Rule 1 C.P.C. for summoning the aforesaid witnesses. It further appears that the Collector, Central Excise Custom, Bhubaneswar-1 is Defendant No.6 is to the suit and is contesting the suit by engaging its counsel. Hence, the Plaintiffs-Petitioners would be at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses to be produced on behalf of the Defendant No.6 during course of trial to establish their claim - there are no infirmity in the impugned order. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the order of the Civil Judge rejecting an application to summon witnesses and produce documents
- Interpretation of Order XVI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.)
- Application of legal principles regarding summoning witnesses through court process
- Examination of the relevance of documents sought to be produced in a civil suit

Analysis:

The judgment by the Orissa High Court involved a challenge to an order passed by a Civil Judge rejecting an application to summon witnesses and produce documents in a civil suit. The petitioners sought to assail the order dated 24th December, 2011, which refused to summon witnesses mentioned in the schedule of the petition through Court process. The key contention was the need to summon the Commissioner of Central Excise and Custom to produce specific documents related to a raid conducted in 1975 at Dharakote Palace. The petitioners argued that the documents were essential for an effective preliminary decree in the suit. However, the Court found that the petition under Order XVI Rule 1 C.P.C. did not clearly establish the necessity of summoning the witnesses through court.

The judgment delved into the interpretation of Order XVI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioners relied on legal precedents to support their argument, emphasizing the importance of early disclosure of witnesses to ensure a fair trial. The Court considered the submissions made by both parties regarding the procedural aspects of summoning witnesses and the relevance of the documents sought to be produced. The Court noted that the procedure under the Civil Procedure Code is designed to facilitate the smooth delivery of justice and any deviation may lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Furthermore, the Court analyzed the application of legal principles concerning the summoning of witnesses through court process. The respondent contended that the petition should have been under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C., and the documents could have been obtained by the petitioners themselves. The Court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure to prevent obstruction of justice. It was highlighted that specific provisions exist for summoning witnesses and production of documents, and any deviation should be justified by showing potential prejudice or obstruction to justice.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, finding it devoid of merit. The judgment emphasized the need for early adjudication of the case, directing the parties to cooperate for the suit's prompt disposal. The Court also granted the petitioners the opportunity to apply for reasonable time to produce the certified copy of the order. Overall, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal issues involved, focusing on the interpretation and application of procedural rules in the context of summoning witnesses and producing documents in civil suits.