Late witness list filing cannot justify denial of evidence where prejudice can be cured with costs and safeguards.

Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC requires timely filing of witness lists to prevent surprise to the opposite party, but procedural compliance should not defeat substantive justice. A belated witness list may justify safeguards such as costs or an opportunity to respond to the delay, yet it should not ordinarily result in a complete denial of the right to lead evidence where any prejudice can be cured. The Orissa HC noted that rejecting the defendant's witness list at a late stage and refusing him the chance to examine witnesses was unjustified; the proper course was to permit the evidence subject to appropriate conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the defendant's list of witnesses filed at a belated stage and thereby refusing him the opportunity to adduce evidence.

Analysis: Order XVI Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires early filing of witness lists so that the opposite party is aware of the evidence to be led and is not taken by surprise. At the same time, procedural requirements are not meant to defeat substantive justice. A belated filing may justify compensatory measures, such as costs or an opportunity to meet the delay, but not a complete denial of the right to lead evidence where prejudice can otherwise be cured.

Conclusion: The rejection of the witness list was unjustified and the defendant should have been permitted to examine his witnesses, subject to appropriate safeguards and costs.

---