Witness summons under Order XVI Rule 1 must issue absent mala fides, vexation, or abuse.

The petitioner, plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 89 of 2025 pending before the 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Rajkot, filed an application below Exhibit 99 seeking issuance of witness summons to five persons.

The Trial Court allowed the application only in respect of Kiritkumar Amrutlal Dobariya, listed at Serial No. 1, and declined it for the remaining proposed witnesses.

The petitioner had previously approached the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 7849 of 2026, pursuant to which the matter was remanded to the Trial Court; however, the Trial Court again declined the request in its order dated 6 August 2026.

Before the High Court, the petitioner confined the request to issuance of summons to Shri Chirag Koyani, a Forensic Document and Fingerprint Examiner whose handwriting-expert report had been produced and exhibited in the suit.

The contesting respondents stated that they had no objection to his examination.

Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to issue witness summons to Shri Chirag Koyani, the handwriting expert whose report had been exhibited in the suit.

Whether, under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a witness-summons application could be refused where it was not shown to be mala fide, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of court.

Whether directions ought to be issued for expeditious disposal of the pending civil suit.

The petition was considered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

The Court applied Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which a party has the right to apply for summons to a witness to give evidence or produce documents.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. M/s Ineos Styrolution Ltd. , 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 241593, the Court held that such an application should ordinarily be allowed unless it is mala fide, vexatious, or constitutes an abuse of the process of court; the Court cannot reject it merely because the evidence may not assist the applicant or because it may cause delay.

The petitioner sought to examine Shri Chirag Koyani to prove the handwriting-expert report already submitted by him and exhibited in the suit.

The request was therefore connected to the evidentiary proof of a document relied upon by the petitioner and was not shown to be mala fide, vexatious, or abusive.

Applying the principles governing Order XVI Rule 1 CPC, the Court held that the Trial Court ought to have issued summons, particularly since the contesting respondents raised no objection to the examination of the witness.

The Court consequently found interference under Article 227 warranted to the limited extent of directing issuance of summons to the handwriting expert.

The Trial Court was directed to issue witness summons to Shri Chirag Koyani for examination as the petitioner’s witness.

The Court did not grant relief concerning the other proposed witnesses, as the petitioner had confined the challenge to Shri Koyani.

At the parties’ request, the Trial Court was further requested to decide Regular Civil Suit No. 89 of 2025 as early as possible, preferably on or before 31 December 2027, subject to the parties’ cooperation.

Rule was made absolute to that extent, with no order as to costs.