Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), delineates the procedures for summoning and ensuring the attendance of witnesses in civil proceedings in India. This order is pivotal for the effective administration of justice, as it facilitates the presentation of evidence through witnesses.

1. LIST OF WITNESSES AND SUMMONS

Under Rule 1 of Order XVI, parties are required to present a list of witnesses they intend to call, either to give evidence or produce documents, within fifteen days after the issues are settled. This provision ensures that both parties and the court are aware of the witnesses to be examined, promoting transparency and preparedness. In the case of Kokkanda B. Poondacha v. K.D. Ganapathi, (2011) 12 SCC 600, the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to this timeline to prevent undue delays in proceedings.

2. APPLICATION FOR SUMMONS

As per Rule 1(2), a party desirous of obtaining a summons for the attendance of any person must file an application stating the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. This requirement ensures that the court understands the relevance of the witness’s testimony to the matters at hand. In Ramsiya vs. Anuradha, (2016) 4 MP LJ 123, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the application must clearly specify the necessity of the witness to the case.

3. COURT’S DISCRETION TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL WITNESSES

Rule 1(3) grants the court discretion to permit a party to call any witness not included in the original list, provided sufficient cause is shown for the omission. This provision balances the need for procedural compliance with the overarching goal of delivering justice. In Rehman Hussain vs. Althaf Hussain, (2003) 4 KarLJ 345, the Karnataka High Court opined that the court should exercise this discretion judiciously, ensuring that the omission was not deliberate or intended to delay proceedings.

4. MODE OF SERVICE AND TENDERING OF EXPENSES

Rules 2 and 3 outline that the court shall fix an amount to cover the traveling and other expenses of the person summoned, which should be tendered at the time of serving the summons. This provision ensures that witnesses are not financially burdened for attending court. The case of Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple v. State of T.N., (1992) 1 MLJ 1, highlighted the importance of promptly compensating witnesses to encourage their cooperation.

5. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-ATTENDANCE

Rule 10 stipulates that if a person summoned fails to attend without lawful excuse, the court may issue a proclamation requiring their attendance and may also issue a warrant, with or without bail, for their arrest. This rule underscores the mandatory nature of a summons and the legal obligations it imposes on the witness. In Manohar Lal Chopra v. U.G. Choudhury, AIR 1957 SC 357, the Supreme Court held that non-attendance without valid reason could lead to contempt proceedings, emphasizing the seriousness of complying with court summons.

6. EXAMINATION OF WITNESES

Rule 14 empowers the court to summon any person as a witness or to produce documents, even if such a person is not listed by either party, if the court deems their evidence essential for a just decision. This provision ensures that the court can seek crucial evidence beyond the parties’ submissions. In Veesam Mohan Reddy v. P.S. Chetty, 1988 (1) ALT 279, the Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that the court’s power under this rule is discretionary and should be exercised to elicit truth and serve the ends of justice.

7. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Rule 6 allows a party to call upon another party in possession of a document to produce it, provided the document is specified with reasonable accuracy. This facilitates the discovery of pertinent documents necessary for the adjudication of the case. In Shamim Ahamed & Anr. v. Mohd Haneef Quareshi, W.P. No. 13508 of 2020, the Karnataka High Court observed that the party requesting the document must demonstrate its relevance and necessity for the case.

8. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVANTS

Certain High Courts have incorporated amendments to Order XVI concerning government servants. For instance, the Bombay High Court added a proviso exempting the government from paying expenses into court when applying for a summons for its own officers. This amendment recognizes the unique position of government servants and streamlines their participation in legal proceedings.

9. ATTENDANCE OF PRISONERS AS WITNESSES

Order XVI-A of the CPC provides a procedure for obtaining the attendance of prisoners as witnesses or for producing evidence. This order ensures that prisoners can participate in legal proceedings without compromising security or procedural integrity. Detailed rules have been provided to prevent arbitrary or mistreatment of prisoners while giving evidence. The case of State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, (1971) 1 SCC 646, discussed the protocols for summoning prisoners, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

10. LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES

While Order XVI provides a comprehensive framework for summoning and attendance of witnesses, certain challenges persist:

• Time-Consuming Process: Summoning witnesses, especially those located in distant areas, can be time-consuming, leading to delays in proceedings.
• Non-Compliance: Witnesses may fail to appear despite being summoned, necessitating additional legal measures and causing further delays.
• Expenses: The costs associated with summoning and compensating witnesses can be substantial, particularly when multiple witnesses are involved.
• Witness Hostility: There is a risk of witnesses turning hostile, providing testimony contrary to prior statements, which can affect the case outcome.

Addressing these challenges requires a combination of strict adherence to procedural rules, judicial discretion, and, where necessary, legislative amendments to streamline processes.

REFERENCES

• Kokkanda B. Poondacha v. K.D. Ganapathi, (2011) 12 SCC 600
• Ramsiya vs. Anuradha, (2016) 4 MP LJ 123
• Rehman Hussain vs. Althaf Hussain, (2003) 4 KarLJ 345
• Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple v. State of T.N., (1992) 1 MLJ 1
• Manohar Lal Chopra v. U.G. Choudhury, AIR 1957 SC 357
• Veesam Mohan Reddy v. P.S. Chetty, 1988 (1) ALT 279
• Shamim Ahamed & Anr. v. Mohd Haneef Quareshi, W.P. No. 13508 of 2020
• State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, (1971) 1 SCC 646