Summoning witness and documents under civil procedure requires necessity and proper grounds; refusal upheld where certified copies were available.

A trial court's refusal to summon a witness and call for documents under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC was upheld where the requested records were in the custody of a public authority that was itself a party, and certified copies could have been obtained for scrutiny. The Court found no material showing that the documents were necessary for proper adjudication or that departure from the ordinary procedure was justified. It also noted that the application did not disclose any adequate ground for summoning the witness, and the authorities cited by the petitioners were inapplicable because the request had not been rejected on delay grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon a witness and require production of documents under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the refusal to summon the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, for production of an old adjudication order and connected records. The Court held that the documents were in the custody of a public authority which was itself a party to the suit, and the petitioners could have procured certified copies for the trial court's scrutiny. It further held that no material was placed to show that the requested documents were necessary for proper adjudication or that deviation from the normal procedure was justified. The Court also noted that the petition under Order XVI Rule 1 did not disclose any ground to summon the witness, and the case law relied upon by the petitioners did not apply because the application was not rejected on the ground of delay.

Conclusion: The refusal to summon the witness and call for the documents was upheld and no infirmity was found in the trial court's order.

---