•
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 417
KOKKANDA B. POONDACHA AND OTHERS A
v.
K.D. GANAPATHI AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2015 of 2011)
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
[G.5. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XVI, Rules 1 and
B
2 r/w s.151 - Partition suit - Defendants filed application for
permission to file a list of witnesses, which included the name C
of the plaintiff's Advocate - Tdal Court granted the defendants
the leave to file the list of witnesses but rejected their prayer
for permission to cite the plaintiff's advocate as a witness on
ground that no reason therefor was assigned in the application
- Justification of- Held: Justified - If the parties to the litigation D
are allowed to file list of witnesses without indicating the
purpose for summoning the particular person(s) as
witness(es), the unscrupulous litigants may create a situation
where the cases may be prolonged for years together- Such
litigants may include the name of the advocate representing E
the other side as a witness and if the Court casually accepts
the list of witnesses, the other side will be deprived of the
services of the advocate - Therefore, it would be a prudent
exercise of discretion by the Court to insist that the party filing
the list of witnesses should briefly indicate the purpose of F
summoning the particular person as a witness - In the instant
case, the concerned advocate was engaged by the plaintiffs
almost 11 years prior to the filing of application by the
defendants - During this long interregnum, the defendants
never objected to the appearance of the plaintiff's advocate G
by pointing out that he was interested in the subject matter of
the suit - The prayer made by the defendants for being
allowed to cite the plaintiff's advocate as a witness was not only
417 H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R. •
A misconceived but also mischievous ex-facie with an oblique
motive of boarding him out of the case.
Constitution of India, 1950...:. Articles 226 and 227 -
Interlocutory order passed by Subordinate Court - Challenge
8 to - Exercise of powers under Arts. 226 and 227 - Scope -
Held: In the instant case, the High Court totally ignored the
principles and parameters laid down by this Court for exercise
of power u/Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution qua an
interlocutory order passed by the Subordinate Court and set
C aside the order of the trial Court without assigning any tangible
reason.
Advocates - Relationship between lawyer and his client
- Duty imposed upon an Advocate - Discusseq -c Held: An
Advocate cannot ordinarily withdraw from engagement without·
D sufficient cause aod without giving reasonable and sufficient
notice to the client- If an Advocate has reason to believe that
he will be a witness in the case, he should not accept a brief
or appear in the case - Principles of 'uberrima fides' - Bar
Council of India Rules, 1975 - Rules 12, 13, 14 and 15 of
E Section II, Chapter II of Part IV. -
Appellant Nos.1 to 3 and one other person filed suit
for partition and separate possession of 1/Gth share each
in the suit property and also for grant of a declaration that
sale deed dated 10.7.1997 executed by appellant Nos.4
F to 6 was not binding on them. Respondent Nos.1 and 2
filed written statement, and subsequently, also filed an
application under Order XVI Rule 1(1) and (2) read with
Section 151 C.P.C. supported by an affidavit of
respondent No.1 for permission to file the list of ~
~ witnesses, which Included the name of 'NRK', the
Advocate who had been representing the appellants in
the suit from the very beginning.
The trial Court partly allowed the application of
• KOKKANDA B. POONDACHA AND ORS. v. K.D. 419
GANAPATHI AND ANR.
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and granted them leave to file A
the list of witnesses but rejected their prayer for
permission to cite 'NRK' as a witness on ground that no
reason therefor was assigned in the application. The
respondents challenged the order of the trial Court by
filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the B
Constitution insofar as their prayer for citing 'NRK' as a
witness was rejected. The High Court allowed the petition
and set aside the order of the trial Court holding that
reasons were not required to be assigned to justify the
summoning of a particular person as a witness. c
In the instant appeal, the questions arising for
consideration were: 1) whether the High Court committed
serious error by interfering with the order of the trial Court
without recording a finding that the said order was
vitiated due to want of jurisdiction or any patent legal D
infirmity in exercise of jurisdiction; and 2) whether a
litigant filing the list of witnesses is bound to indicate,
howsoever briefly, the relevance of the witness to the
subject matter of the suit etc., and, in any case, one party
to the proceedings cannot cite the advocate representing E
the other side as a witness and thereby deprive the latter
of the services of the advocate without disclosing as to
how his testimony is relevant to the issues arising in the
case.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD:1. The High Court totally ignored the
principles and parameters laid down by this Court for
exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution qua an interlocutory order passed by the G
Subordinate Court and set aside the order of the trial
Court without assigning any tangible reason. [Para 10]
[427-H; 428-A-B]
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) H
420 SUPREME COURT REFl>ORTS
•
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A 6 SCC 675 and Shalini Shyam :Sheffy v. Rajendra Shankar
Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 - reliecf on.
2.1. The relationship between a lawyer and his client
is solely founded on trust and confidence. A lawyer
8 cannot pass on the confiden~ial information to anyone
else. This is so because he 's a fiduciary of his client,
who reposes trust and cqnfidence in the lawyer.
Therefore, he has a duty tQ fulfill all his obligations
towards his client with care ~nd act in good faith. Since
C the client entrusts the whole obligation of handling legal
proceedings to an advocate, he has to act according to
the principles of uberrima fide$, i.e., the utmost good faith,
integrity, fairness and loyaltyl [Para 12] [428-F-G]
2.2. The duties of an advQcate to the Court, the client,
D opponent and colleagues arei enumerated in Chapter II of
Part IV of the Bar Council ot:lndia Rules, 1975. Rules 12,
13, 14 and 15 of Section II, ,Chapter II of Part IV of the
Rules, regulate the duty of ~n advocate to the client. An
analysis of the above Rules show that one of the most
E important duty imposed upc>n an advocate is to uphold
the interest of the client, fearlessly by all fair and
honourable means. An advocate cannot ordinarily
withdraw from engagement :without sufficient cause and
without giving reasonable and sufficient notice to the
F client. If he has reason to believe that he will be a witness
in the case, the advocate $hould not accept a brief or
appear in the case. [Paras 1$, 14] [428-H; 429-A-B; H; 430-
A]
2.3. If the prayer made by the respondents for being
G allowed to cite 'NRK' as a witness is critically scrutinized
in the backdrop of the duti~s of an advocate towards his
client, it is clear that the same was not only misconceived
but was mischievous ex-facie. Neither in the written
statement nor the additiot;ial written statement filed by
H them before the trial Court, the respondents hadl
• KOKKANDA' B. POON DACHA AND ORS. v. K.D. 421
GANAPATHI AND ANR.
attributed any role to 'NRK' in relation to the subject A
matter of the suit. The concerned advocate was engager'.
by the plaintiffs-appellants in 1996 i.e. almost 11 years
prior to the filing of application by the respondents under
Order XVI Rule 1(1) and (2) read with Section 151 CPC.
During this long interregnum, the respondents never B
objected to the appearance of 'NRK' as an advocate of
the appellants by pointing out that he was interested in
the subject matter of the suit. Notwithstanding this, the
respondents cited him as a witness in the list filed along
with the application. The sole purpose of doing this was c
to create a situ~tion in which the advocate would have
been forced to withdraw from the case. Luckily for the
appellants, the trial Court could see the game plan of the
respondents and frustrated their design by partly
dismissing the application. The Single Judge of the High 0 Court ignored that the respondents had included the
name of 'NRK' in the list of witnesses proposed to be
summoned by them with an oblique motive of boarding
him out of the case and passed the impugned order by
recording one line observation that the respondents were E
not required to give reasons for summoning the
particular person as a witness. [Para 15] [430-G-H; 431-
A·D]
2.4. If the parties to the litigation are allowed to file
list of witnesses without indicating the purpose for F
summoning the particular person(s) as witness(es), the
unscrupulous litigants may create a situation where the
cases may be prolonged for years together. Such
litigants may include the name of the advocate
representing the other side as a witness and if the Court G
casually accepts the list of witnesses, the other side will
be deprived of the services of the advocate. Therefore, it
would be a prudent exercise of discretion by the Court
to insist that the party filing the list of witnesses should
briefly indicate the purpose of summoning the particular H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS • [2011] 4 S.C.R.
A person as a witness. The iml)ugned order of the High
Court is set aside and the one: passed by the trial Court
is restored. The respondents s~all pay cost of Rs.50,000/
• to the appellants. [Para 16) [431-E-H]
B Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan ~1983) 4 SCC 36 and V. C.
Rangadurai v. D. Gopa/an (1979,) 1 SCC 308 - relied on.
Case Law ,Reference:
(201 O) 8 sec 329 relied on Para 6, 9
c (1983) 4 sec 36 relied on Para 6, 11
(2003) 6 sec 675 relied on Para 7, 8
(1979) 1 sec 308 relied on Para 14
o CIVIL APPELLLATE JURl$DICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2015 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Ord~r dated 24.2.2010 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore !n W.P. No. 2610 of 2007 (GME CPC).
F
Krian Suri for the Appellants.
S.N. Bhat for the Respondents.
The following Judgment o~ the Court was delivered
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2. Whether the respondents (defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the
G suit filed by the appellants), could cite the advocate
representing the appellants asi a witness in the list filed under
Order XVI Rule 1 (1) and (2) read with Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure (CPC) without giving an iota of indication
about the purpose of summoning him in future is the question
H
• KOKKANDA B. POONDACHA AND ORS. v. K.D. 423
GANAPATHI AND ANR.
which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against order A
dated 24.02.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
Karnataka High Court whereby he set aside the order passed
by the trial Court partly dismissing the application of the
respondents.
3. Appellant Nos.1 to 3 and one Parvathy filed suit, which
came to be registered as O.S. No.75 of 1996, for partition and
separate possession of 1/6th share each in the suit property
and also for grant of a declaration that sale deed dated
B
10. 7 .1997 executed by defendant Nos.2 to 4, who were, later
on, transposed as plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 (appellant Nos.4 to 6 C
herein), was not binding on them. Defendant Nos.5 to 7
(including respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) filed written
statement on 19.2.1998. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed
additional written statement on 9.8.2002. After two years and
seven months, they filed an application dated 11.3.2005 under D
Order XVI Rule 1 (1) and (2) read with Section 151 C.P.C.
supported by an affidavit of respondent No.1 for permission to
file the list of witnesses, which included the name of Shri N.
Ravindranath Karnath, Advocate, who was representing th.e
appellants in the suit from the very beginning.
4. The trial Court partly allowed the application of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and granted leave to them to file the
E
list of witnesses but rejected their prayer for permission to cite
Shri N. Ravindranath Karnath as witness No.1. The reasons F
assigned by the trial Court for partially declining the prayer of
respondent Nos; 1 and 2 are extracted below:
" ...................... While citing advocate of the opposite party
as a witness, the defendants 3 and 4 ought to have given
reason for what purpose they are citing him as a witness G
and examining him in their favour. Once the advocate for
the opposite party is cited as a witness in the list, the
opposite party losses precious service of his advocate. In
that circumstances, the party will suffer. Under the
circumstances, so as to know for what purpose the H
A
B
c
D
E
F
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R. •
defendant ,110.2 and 3 are citing and examining the N.R.
Karnath advocate for the plaintiff in their favour have to
assign reason. The Court has to very cautious and careful
while considering such an aspect of the matter of
examining and citing the advocate foF the opposite party
in their favour. The Court has to determine as to whether
the evidence of said advocate is material for the decision
of the case or not? Unless defendant no.2 and 3 assigned
reason in the application or in the affidavit as to why they
are citing the advocate for the opposite party and
examining in their favour, the application filed by defendant
no.2 and 3 is not maintainable and the said application is
not sustainable under law. In the above said Judgment, in
para 2, it is clearly held that, "but qppellants then filed a
petition seeking permission to cite the advocate of the
respondents as a witness". But herein this case, the
defendant no.2 and 3 are not seeking permission to cite
the advocate for the plaintiff as a withess. Defendant no.2
and 3 not only have to seek permissic:,m of this Court to cite
the advocate for the Plaintiff as a witness, but also he has
to give good reasons for what purpose he is citing him as
a witness and examining in his favour. Without assigning
any reasons and without seeking permission to cite the
advocate for the Plaintiff as a witne:;;s in the witness list,
application to that extent is not tenable and same is liable
to be dismissed to that extent."
5. The respondents challenged the o:rder of the trial Court
by filing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution insofar as their prayer for citing Shri N.
Ravindranath Karnath as a witness was t~jected. The learned
G Single Judge allowed the petition and set aside the order of
the trial Court by simply observing that reasons are not required
to be assigned to justify the summoning ~fa particular person
as a witness.
H 6. Mrs. Kiran Suri, learned counsel fof the appellants relied
upon the judgment of this Court in Shallni Shyam Shetty vs.
• KOKKANDA B. POONDACHA AND ORS. v. K.D. 425
GANAPATHI AND ANR.
Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 and argued that A
the order under challenge is liable to be set aside because the
High Court committed serious error by interfering with the order
of the trial Court without recording a finding that the said orde.r
is vitiated due to want of jurisdiction or any patent legal infirmity
in the exercise of jurisdiction and that refusal of the trial Court B
to permit the respondents to cite Shri N. Ravindranath Karnath
as a witness had prejudiced their cause. She further argued
that the respondents are not entitled to cite and summon as a
witness the advocate representing the appellants because in
the application filed by them, no justification was offered for· c
doing so. In support of this argument, Mrs. Suri relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Maqge Ram vs. Brij Mohan (1983)
4 sec 36. ·
7. Shri S.N. Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondents
argued that even though his clients had filed application D
belatedly, the trial Court was not justified in declining their
prayer for citing Shri N. Ravindranath Karnath as a witness
merely because he was representing the appellants. Learned
counsel submitted that at the stage of filing the list of witnesses,
the plaintiffs or for that reason the defendants are not required E
to disclose the nature of the evidence to be given by the
particular witness or its relevance to the subject matter of the
suit etc. and the trial Court had grossly erred in not granting
leave to the respondents to cite Shri N. Ravindranath Karnath
as one of their witnesses. Shri Bhatt relied upon the judgment F
in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6
sec 675 and argued that even after amendment of Section
115, C.P.C., the High Court can, in exercise of supervisory
power under Article 227, correct the error of jurisdiction
committed by the Subordinate Court. G
8. We have considered the respective submissions. We.
shall first consider the question whether the High Coort could
interfere with the order of the trial Court without considering the
question whether the said order was vitiated due to wan".·of H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R.
A jurisdiction or the trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in
deciding the application of the respondents and the order
passed by :ithas resulted in fail.ire ofj.lsti;:e. Jh Surya Dev Rai's
case (supra), the two Judge Bench, after detailed analysis of
the various precedents on the scope of th~ High Court's powers
B under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution culled out nine
c
Q
E
F
G
H
propos(tions including the following:-
"(2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate
to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has
been excluded by CPC Amendment Act 46 of 1999 are
nevertheless open to challenge in,, and continue to be
subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High
Court.
(3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is
issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e. when
a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without
jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdictiorn where there exists
none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by overstepping
or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant
disregard of law or the rules of proi;edure or acting in
violation of principles of natural justice where there is no
procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of
justice.
(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate
courts within the bounds of their jurit;diction. When the
subordinate Court has assumed a juris~iction which it does
not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it
does have or the jurisdiction though available is being
exercised by the Court in a manner n(:>t permitted by law
and failure of justice or grave injusti¢e has occasioned
thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its
supervisory jurisdiction.
(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory
• KOKKANDA B. POONDACHA AND ORS. v. K.D. 427
GANAPATHI AND ANR.
jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact A
or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied:
(I) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the
proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance
or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave
injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned B
thereby."
9. In Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil
(supra), the Court again examined the scope of the High Court's
power under Article 227 of the Constitution and laid down the C
following proposition:
"Article 227 can be invoked by the High Court suo motu
as a custodian of justice. An improper and a frequent
exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will
divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. D
The power is discretionary and has to be exercised very
sparingly on equitable principle. This reserve and
exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be
exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but
should be directed for promotion of public confidence in E
the administration in the larger public interest whereas
Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievances.
Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered
but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial
discipline. The object of superintendence under Article F
227, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain
efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire
machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it
into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article
227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel G
of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court."
10. The learned Single Judge of the High Court totally H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
e
[2011] 4 S.C.R.
A ignored the principles and parameters laid down by this Court
for exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution qua an interlocutory order passed by the
Subordinate Court and set aside the otder of the trial Court
without assigning any tangible reason.
B 11. The next question which needs consideration is
whether a litigant filing the list of witnesses is bound to indicate,
howsoever briefly, the relevance of the witness to the subject
matter of the suit etc., and, in any case, one party to the
proceedings cannot cite the advocate representing the other
C side as a witness and thereby deprive th~ latter of the services
of the advocate without disclosing as to how his testimony is
relevant to the issues arising in the case. In Mange Ram vs.
Brij Mohan (supra), this Court interpreted Order XVI Rule 1
(1),(2) and (3) CPC and observed:
D
"If the requirements of these provisions are conjointly read
and properly analysed, it clearly transpires that the
obligation to supply the list as we'I as the gist of the
evidence of each witness whose natne is entered in the
E list has to be carried out in respect of those witnesses for
procuring whose attendance th$ party needs the
assistance of the court."
12. At this stage, we may also advert to the nature of
relationship between a lawyer ang his client, which is solely
F founded on trust and confidence. A lawyet cannot pass on the
confidential information to anyone else. This is so because he
is a fiduc:iary of his client, who reposes trust and confidence in
the lawyer. Therefore, he has a duty to fulfill all his obligations
towards his client with care and act in g¢>od faith. Since the
G client entrusts the whole obligation of handling legal
proceedings to an advocate, he has to act according to the
principles of uberrima fides, i.e., the utmost good faith, integrity,
fairness and loyalty.
H 13. The duties of an advocate to the Court, the client,
• KOKKANDA B. POONDACHA AND ORS. v. K.D. 429
GANAPATHI AND ANR.
opponent and colleagues are enumerated in Chapter II of Part A
l,V of the ~'ar Council of India .Rules, 1975 (for short, "the
Rules"). Ruies 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Section II, Chapter II of Part
IV of the Rules, which regulate the duty of an advocate to the
client, read as under:
"12. An advocate shall not ordinarily withdraw from
engagements, once accepted, without sufficient cause
and unless reasonable and sufficient notice is given to the
client. Upon his withdrawal from a case, he shall refund
such part of the fee as has not been earned.
13. An advocate should not accept a brief or appear in a
case in which he has reason to believe that he will be a
witness, and if being engaged in a case, it becomes
apparent that he is a witness on a material question of fact,
B·
c
he should not continue to appear as an advocate if he can o
retire without jeopardising his client's interests.
14. An advocate shall, at the commencement of his
engagement and during the continuance thereof, make all
such full and frank disclosures to his client relating to his
connection with the parties and any interest in or about the E
controversy as are likely to affect his client's judgment in
either engaging him or continuing the engagement.
15. It shall be the duty of an advocate fearlessly to uphold
the interests of-his client by all fair and honourable means F
without regard to any unpleasant consequences to himself
or any other. He shall defend a person accused of a crime .
regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the
accused, bearing in mind that his loyalty is to the law which
requires that no man should be convicted without adequate G
evidence."
14. An analysis of the above reproduced Rules show that
one of the most important duty imposed upon an advocate is
to uphold the interest of the client fearlessly by all fair and
honourable means. An advocate cannot ordinarily withdraw H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 4 S.C.R.
A from enga!1ement witho.ut sufficient ca4se and without giving
reasonable ·and sufficient notice to the Cllient. If he has reason
to believe th'at he will be a witness in the case, the advocate
should not accept a brief or appear in the case. In V. C.
Rangadurai v. D. Gopahm (1979) 1 $CC 308, A.P.Sen, J.
B outlined the importance of the relationship of an advocate with
c
D
E
F
his client in the following words:
"Nothing should be done by any member of the legal
fraternity which might tend to les~en in any degree the
confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity
of the profession. Lord Brougham, then aged eighty-six,
said in a speech, in 1864, that the first great quality of an
advocate was 'to reckon everything subordinate to the
interests of his client'. What he said in 1864 about 'the
paramountcy of the client's intere~t', is equally true today.
The relation between a lawyer and his client is highly
fiduciary in its nature and of a ver'), delicate, exacting, and
confidential character requiring a high degree of fidelity
and good faith. It is purely a perso~al relationship, involving
the highest personal trust and confidence which cannot be
delegated without consent. A lawyer when entrusted with
a brief, is expected to follow the norms of professional
ethics and try to protect the int$rests of his clients, in
relation to whom he occupies a position of trust. The
appellant completely betrayed the trust reposed in him by
the complainants."
15. If the prayer made by the respondents for being
allowed to cite Shri N. Ravindranath Karnath as a witness is
critically scrutinised in the backdr(>p of the above noted
statement on the duties of an advocate towards his client, we
G have no hesitation to hold that the same was not only
misconceived but was mischievous ex-facie. Neither in the
written statement nor the additional written statement filed by
them before the trial Court, the respondents had attributed any
role to Shri N. Ravindranath Karnath in relation to the subject
H matter of the suit. The concerned aqvocate was engaged by
•
• KOKKANDA B. POONDACHA AND ORS. v. K.D. 431
GANAPATHI AND ANR.
the plaintiffs-appellants in 1996 i.e. ·almost 11 years prior to the A
filing of application by the respondents under Order XVI Rule
1(1) and (2) read with Section 151 CPC. During this long
interregnum, the respondents never objected to the appearance
of Shri N. Ravindranath Karnath as an advocate of the
appellants by pointing out that he was interested in the subject B
matter of the suit. Notwithstanding this, the respondents cited
him as a witness in the list filed along with the application. The
sole purpose of doing this was to create a situation in which
the advocate would have been forced to withdraw from the
case. Luckily for the appellants, the trial Court could see the c
game plan of the respondents and frustrated their design by
partly dismissing the application. The learned Single Judge
ignored that the respondents had included the name of Shri N.
Ravindranath Karnath in the list of witnesses proposed to be
summoned by them with an oblique motive of boarding him out 0 of the case and passed the impugned order by recording one
line observation that the respondents were not required to give
reasons for summoning the particular person as a witness.
16. We may add that if the parties to the litigation are
allowed to file list of witnesses without indicating the purpose E
for summoning the particular person(s) as witness(es), the
unscrupulous litigants may create a situation where the cases
may be prolonged for years together. Such litigants may include
~he name of the advocate representing the other side as a
witness and if _the Court casually accepts the list of witnesses,
the ottier side will be deprived of the services of the advocate.
Therefore, it would Pe a prudent exercise of discretion by the
Court to insists.that the party filing the list of witnesses should
briefly indicate..the purpose of summoning the particular person
as a witness.
• •
17: in· the-·result. the appeal is allowed, the impugned order
• is oet aside and the ol're passed by the trial Court is restored.
The respondE!nts shall pay cost of Rs.5Q,OOO/- to the _appellants.
F
G
B.B.~. Appeal allowed. H
