ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Order XVI Rule 10 CPC — Failure of witness to comply with summons Where a witness, to whom summons has been duly issued to produce documents or to give evidence, fails to attend without lawful excuse, the Court is empowered under Order XVI Rule 10(3) CPC to issue proclamation and, in its discretion, issue bailable or non-bailable warrant for arrest or order attachment of property. (Paras 8–9)Closing of evidence — Impermissibility solely on ground of pendency Evidence cannot be closed merely on the ground that the suit is an old matter, particularly when the Court’s earlier order directing production of documents and examination of a witness remains uncomplied with. (Para 11)

Friday, January 9, 2026

Order XVI Rule 10 CPC — Failure of witness to comply with summons Where a witness, to whom summons has been duly issued to produce documents or to give evidence, fails to attend without lawful excuse, the Court is empowered under Order XVI Rule 10(3) CPC to issue proclamation and, in its discretion, issue bailable or non-bailable warrant for arrest or order attachment of property. (Paras 8–9)Closing of evidence — Impermissibility solely on ground of pendency Evidence cannot be closed merely on the ground that the suit is an old matter, particularly when the Court’s earlier order directing production of documents and examination of a witness remains uncomplied with. (Para 11)

advocatemmmohan

Order XVI Rule 10 CPC — Failure of witness to comply with summons

Where a witness, to whom summons has been duly issued to produce documents or to give evidence, fails to attend without lawful excuse, the Court is empowered under Order XVI Rule 10(3) CPC to issue proclamation and, in its discretion, issue bailable or non-bailable warrant for arrest or order attachment of property.
(Paras 8–9)

Public officer as witness — Obligation to obey summons

A Tahsildar or public officer summoned by Court to produce original revenue records and to give evidence cannot avoid personal appearance by deputing a subordinate, nor can non-production of records be justified without lawful excuse.
(Paras 4, 10–11)

Closing of evidence — Impermissibility solely on ground of pendency

Evidence cannot be closed merely on the ground that the suit is an old matter, particularly when the Court’s earlier order directing production of documents and examination of a witness remains uncomplied with.
(Para 11)

Discretion under Order XVI Rule 10(3) CPC — Duty to apply statutory parameters

While the power under Order XVI Rule 10(3) CPC is discretionary, such discretion must be exercised after examining the statutory conditions and procedural safeguards under Rule 10(1) and (2); failure to do so vitiates the order.
(Paras 11–12, 16)

Proof of public documents — Necessity of examination

Even where documents produced are public documents, the concerned official must be examined to prove their authenticity; mere filing of documents through a Village Revenue Officer is insufficient.
(Paras 13–14)

Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction

Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has a duty to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and to correct erroneous exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction.
(Paras 15–16)

ANALYSIS

The Revision Petitions arose from a common order dated 05-08-2025 passed in I.A.Nos.585 and 586 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2015, whereby the Trial Court dismissed applications seeking (i) reopening of I.A.No.392 of 2025, and (ii) issuance of arrest warrant against the Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal, for non-compliance with summons (Paras 1–2).

Earlier, the Trial Court had allowed I.A.No.392 of 2025 on 28-04-2025, directing issuance of summons to the Tahsildar for production of original revenue records and to give evidence (Para 10). Despite service of summons, the Tahsildar neither appeared nor produced the records, and only a Village Revenue Officer attended and made oral submissions (Paras 4, 11).

The Trial Court ultimately closed the evidence on the ground that the suit was an old matter and dismissed the subsequent applications seeking coercive steps under Order XVI Rule 10(3) CPC (Paras 5, 11).

The High Court held that mere pendency or age of the suit cannot justify closing evidence when compliance with earlier judicial orders is lacking (Para 11). The Court emphasised that the discretion under Order XVI Rule 10(3) CPC must be exercised after examining the statutory framework and safeguards under Rule 10(1) and (2), which the Trial Court failed to do (Paras 11–12, 16).

Relying upon Mirza Zareena Begum v. Sanka Subba Rao and Nagireddy Ravindra Reddy v. Bujjivemula Lakshmi Devi, the Court reiterated that production of public documents must be followed by examination of the competent official to prove authenticity (Paras 12–14).

Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., the High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, held the impugned orders unsustainable, and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration (Paras 15–17).

RATIO DECIDENDI

When a witness, including a public officer, fails to comply with Court summons for production of documents and to give evidence without lawful excuse, the Trial Court must consider and apply the statutory procedure and coercive powers under Order XVI Rule 10 CPC; closing evidence merely on the ground that the suit is old, without enforcing compliance or exercising discretion in accordance with law, amounts to erroneous exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN