K.Valarmathi and others v. Kumaresan

..PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS AND P. Vittal @ Mohan, S/o. Saidaiah, S/o. Saidaiah,. Aged about. 59 years. Occ. VRO R/o. Anju ma n Fa rm Virase or Mokanpa,y **, Tlyg[ti_BE il?li[ffi [i!?rtr"i ntir lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in l.A.No. 366 of 2022 in O.S. No. 84 of 2014.dated 21-O7-2023 in allowing the l.A. for summoning the aditors of vaartha, namaste telangana, andhra prabha, praja shakthi, janam shakthi, daily news paper along with complete record pertaining to news paper 06-1 1 -2013, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad, pending disposal of the present Civil Reviiion Petition. i i I I ! I I t i: Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl. K DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PARIMALA PARIGI The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CTVIL REVISION N No.2593 of 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order in I.A.No.336 of 2022 in O.S.No.84 of 2014, dated 21.O7.2023 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad, wherein, the application filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC came to be allowed.

2. Petitioners herein are the respondents-defendants and the respondent herein is the petitioner-plaintiff in I.A.No.336 of 2022 in O.S.No.S4 of 2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits. that the Court below failed to consider the fact that the respondent-petitioner- plaintiff intentionally dragged the matter from the year 2014 and the suit was dismissed for default on 23.09.2019, restored on

24.OL.2022 and thereafter, I.A.No.366 of 2022 came to be filed on L3.1O.2O22 which was ordered on 21.07.2023 to record the statements which is totally illegal and failed to consider the contentions of the petitioners-respondents-defendants. The Court below failed to see that the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff failed to submit the list of witnesses within fifteen (15) days from the date of framing the issues and prayed to set aside the order 2

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff submits that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the contentions raised by the parties and allowed the petition and issued summons to the editors of different newspapers. There is no embargo in filing the application to summon the witnesses. No interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

5. Power of the High court under Article 22T is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC Online SC 985).

6. Respondent-petitioner-plaintiff has filed suit for damages against the petitioners-respondents-defendants claiming an amount of Rs.8 lakhs. The plaint goes to show that defendant No.1 (petitioner No.1 herein) has given a defamatory statement against the plaintiff (respondent herein) in various Telugu daily newSpapersbycausingheavydamagetohisreputation. '1 / ./' ,i..\ 3

7. It is appropriate to refer order XVI Rule 1 which reads as under: "(1) List of witness and summons to witnesses: (1) On or before such date as tLrc Court maA appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which fhe issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses uthom thea propose to call either to giue euidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Co;urt. (2) A party desirous of obtaining anA summons for the attendance of anA person shall file in Court an application stating th.erein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. (3) Tlrc Court maA, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether bg summoning through Court or otlrcruise, dflU utitness, other than those whose names appear in the list refered to in sub-ntle (1), if such parlA shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. (4) Subject to the prouisions of sub-rule (2), summonses refered to in this rule mag be obtained bg the pizrties on an application to the Court or to such officer as mag be appointed by the Court in this behatf within fiue days of presenting tlrc list of witnesses under sub-rute(1)." 8 1 On perusal of the application filed by the respondent- petitioner-plaintiff in I.A.No.366 of 2022, which states that he filed the suit for damages and petitioners-respondents-defendants have made defamatory statements in various newspapers on 06.11 .2023 and to prove the contention, the editors of various Telugu daily newspapers i.e., Vartha Telugu Daily News Papers, Namasthe Telangana, Andhra Prabha, Praja Shakthi, Janam Sakshi are to be summoned with complete records pertaining to newspapers dated

06.11 .2013 \ \ 4 lt\

8.2. Petitioners, who are the respondents in the said application opposed the application stating that respondent-petitioner-plaintiff filed the application to drag on the proceedings.

9. Learned trial court after considering the contentions raised by the parties has allowed the application as prayed for.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff failed to file the list of witnesses after framing of issues, he is estopped from summoning the witnesses. It is appropriate to note that order XVI Rule 3, states that "the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to cail, whether by summoning through court or otherwise, &oy witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows suflicient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list".

11. Admittedly, respondent-petitioner-plaintiff has not filed any list of witnesses and thg suit filed by him is for damages as the petitioner No. 1-respondent No.l-defendant No.1 gave defamatory statements in different newspapers on O6. 1 i .2O 13. L2. Learned trial court has given cogent reasons at paragraph No.6 of its order while allowing the application. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited in view grf the decision stated supraat paragraph No.S. --- -- ---r' /. ('' 5

13. Learned trial court has rightly appreciated the contentions raised by the parties and allowed the application to summon the witnesses. Petitioners have not made out any case to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial cor-rrt in I.A.No.366 of 2022. The present civil Revision Petition lacks merits and the same is Iiable to be dismissed L4. Accordingly, this civil Revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s shall stand closed. sd/, S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT RE //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, t8X".UT'|"'.3'$''{g1,he'I5nffi li:Advocateroiu-Qr 3. one cc to sni.'pn-nirran-ln pnntGl Advocate [oPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/kam M, a I t SHE1 'E {-) * m FI2 NAJ 20?$ * HIGH COURT DATED:1711112025 ORDER CRP.No.2593 of 2023 DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 1 \