A witness is to be summoned only when it is relevant
Before summoning a witness to the court for examination in an ongoing civil suit, the party to the case has to disclose the relevancy of that particular piece of evidence in regard to the issues arising in the suit, says the Kerala High Court in Infant Jesus Church v Southern Law Chambers, [2024 KER 87181].
Law says the party must say the purpose of calling
The Order 16 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) mandates that a party who is desirous of obtaining summons against the witness shall state the purpose for summoning the witness in an Application and the court should consider whether the said purpose is relevant for adjudication of the suit or proceeding before it, before issuing summons to such witness. Summons shall not be issued by the court in a casual manner.
The Supreme Court (SC) in Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Others v K.D Ganapathi & Another [2011(12) SCC 600] substantiates the point that while summoning the witnesses, a party has to disclose the relevancy of the evidence with regard to the issues arising in the suit.
The purpose for summoning a witness is to be specifically stated and in the absence of such a necessary requirement, the court shall disallow the summoning of the witness.
Stating of reasons will prevent unnecessary summoning
The requirement of stating reasons for summoning witness in the Application seeking issuance of summons is for the purpose of avoiding summoning of unnecessary witnesses which are intended for the purpose of delaying and protracting the proceedings and thereby wasting valuable judicial time.
Such unnecessary summoning of witness would cause unwanted inconvenience to the witness for no reason and such inconvenience would be high if the witnesses or public officers are staying a t a distance.
Court cannot curtail necessary evidence
Of course, on the other hand the court cannot curtail evidence and limit the number of witnesses to be examined by the parties.
Procedural law should be used to advance justice
However, the SC says in Kailash v Nanhku and Others [2005 (4) SCC 480] that all the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice.
The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice and no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.
References
- Infant Jesus Church v Southern Law Chambers, [2024 KER 87181]
- Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Others v K.D Ganapathi & Another [2011(12) SCC 600]
- Kailash v Nanhku and Others[2005 (4) SCC 480]
