Omission of witnesses from initial list requires showing sufficient cause for inclusion at later stages.

The Petitioner, owner of the trademark ‘Clariwash’, filed a commercial suit in 2019 alleging infringement by the Respondents

After failed mediation and the dismissal of a summary judgment application, the Trial Court framed issues on 04.02.2025

The Petitioner initially filed a list of one witness (PW-1) on 10.02.2025

Subsequently, the Petitioner moved an application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC to add three more witnesses (PW-2 to PW-4), which the Trial Court allowed on 06.03.2025

On 22.04.2025, the Petitioner filed a "Subject Application" seeking to add two additional witnesses (PW-5 and PW-6), citing the poor health of one and the out-of-station work commitments of the other as reasons for their prior omission

The Trial Court dismissed this application on 21.11.2025, noting the suit was the oldest pending matter and the Petitioner was adopting dilatory tactics

1. Whether a party can examine witnesses not mentioned in the initial list of witnesses filed under Order XVI Rule 1(1) of the CPC without showing "sufficient cause" for the omission

2. Whether the Petitioner’s reasons (medical condition and work commitments) constituted "sufficient cause" to permit additional witnesses at a belated stage in a commercial suit

The court applied Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC, which mandates filing a list of witnesses within fifteen days of settling issues

Specifically, Rule 1(3) grants the court discretion to permit witnesses not in the list only if the party shows "sufficient cause" for the omission

Rule 1A allows production of witnesses without summons, but this is expressly "subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 1"

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan (1983), which clarified that while Rule 1A enables a party to bring witnesses directly, the court must still be satisfied as to the necessity and the reason for the initial omission to prevent frivolous delays

The High Court observed that while Order XVI Rule 1A provides a mechanism to produce witnesses without court summons, it does not grant an unfettered right to add witnesses at any stage

The court found that the Petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence, such as medical records, to substantiate the claim that PW-5 was too ill to be listed earlier

Furthermore, the court reasoned that the names of the witnesses could have been included in the previous lists even if they were unavailable to testify immediately

Justice Karia emphasized that the suit had been pending for six years and the Petitioner had already been granted "leverage" once by adding three witnesses previously

Consequently, the court determined that the application was a dilatory tactic rather than a bona fide necessity for adjudication

The court upheld the Trial Court’s order, affirming that in old commercial matters, parties cannot be allowed to repeatedly expand their witness list without cogent reasons/evidence

The Trial Court's dismissal of the Subject Application was found to be without infirmity