Summoning already exhibited and unchallenged income-tax records is unnecessary and warrants no Article 227 interference.

The petitioner-insurer, opposite party no. 1 in M.A.C. Case No. 65 of 2020, challenged the order dated 12 February 2025 passed by the Additional District Judge-VII-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur, in M.C.A. No. 36 of 2025.

The Tribunal had rejected the petitioner’s application under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking summons to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur, for production of the deceased’s income-tax returns.

The motor accident claim arose from the death of Bimal Kishore Prasad in an accident on 17 September 2019.

The income-tax returns sought by the petitioner were already on record and had been marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-13 and A-23 to A-27 through C.W.3.

The petitioner had not challenged their genuineness or put any question concerning those documents to C.W.3 during cross-examination.

Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the Tribunal’s order rejecting the application for summons under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC?

Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to summon the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax when the relevant income-tax returns were already on record, exhibited, and not challenged in cross-examination?

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under which the High Court exercises limited supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals to ensure that they act within the bounds of their jurisdiction and do not commit patent illegality.

It also considered Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 CPC, governing the summoning and attendance of witnesses and production of documents, read with the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC.

The underlying principle applied was that a party cannot insist upon summoning documents where the same documents are already on record and have been duly exhibited, particularly when their authenticity was not disputed or tested in cross-examination.

The Court held that the documents sought through the summons were already available in the claim proceedings and had been proved by C.W.3 as Exhibits A-1 to A-13 and A-23 to A-27.

Since the petitioner neither questioned the genuineness of the returns nor put any related question to C.W.3 during cross-examination, requiring the Income Tax Commissioner to produce the same documents again was unnecessary.

The Tribunal was therefore justified in treating the application as uncalled for, particularly in light of the prolonged pendency of the claim case, closure of the claimants’ evidence, the petitioner’s earlier unsuccessful attempt to summon the DTO, and the failure to produce defence evidence despite being granted a final opportunity.

The High Court consequently found no basis to interfere under Article 227.

It held that the Tribunal had correctly rejected the application for summoning the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax because the relevant income-tax returns were already on record and had been exhibited without any effective challenge.

Finding no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order dated 12 February 2025, the Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition as meritless.

The pending interlocutory application for early hearing was disposed of as infructuous, and any other pending application was likewise disposed of.

The lower-court record was directed to be returned forthwith.