Abuse of Process Through Tactical Witness Summoning
The procedural rules governing civil litigation are designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and the proper administration of justice. However, litigants occasionally attempt to circumvent these rules through creative but improper tactics. The case of Uma Shankar Bhartia v. Suvidha Estate Agency, decided on 22.03.2023, involved precisely such an attempt and provided the Punjab and Haryana High Court an opportunity to condemn a deplorable practice that had apparently become sufficiently common to warrant explicit judicial rebuke.
The Court’s Strong Disapproval
The High Court’s language in dismissing this tactic was notably emphatic. Describing the practice of summoning the opposite party as one’s own witness as deplorable, the court did not merely reverse the lower court’s order but articulated a broader principle regarding the sanctity of procedural rules. The revision petition filed by Uma Shankar Bhartia was allowed in its entirety, and the summoning order passed by the lower court was set aside.
Circumventing Evidence Rules
Under the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, parties have defined mechanisms for examining witnesses. A witness testifying for one party is ordinarily amenable to cross-examination by the opposing party. The practice condemned by the court involved a party attempting to use the witness summoning procedure to compel the opposite party to testify as if they were a friendly witness, thereby seeking to avoid the ordinary rules of cross-examination and to manipulate the evidentiary process. This represents a fundamental distortion of the witness examination framework.
Procedural Integrity and Fair Trial
The court’s intervention underscores that the rules of procedure are not mere formalities to be disregarded but are integral to the fair conduct of litigation. When a party seeks to examine the opposite party, the proper procedure involves examination-in-chief by the opposite party’s own counsel, followed by cross-examination by the other side. The tactical maneuver at issue would have allowed a party to examine the opposite party under a guise that obscured the adversarial nature of the questioning, thereby undermining procedural transparency.
Guidance for Future Conduct
This judgment provides valuable guidance to trial courts and litigants alike. It establishes that courts will not countenance attempts to abuse procedural mechanisms, however creatively framed. The High Court’s strong disapproval sends a clear message that while the procedural rules allow considerable flexibility, they cannot be used to achieve outcomes that violate their fundamental purpose. Trial courts are thus reminded to scrutinize summoning requests carefully and to reject those that appear motivated by tactical considerations rather than genuine evidentiary necessity.
Mrs. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Viraj Gandhi, Advocate, appeared for the Petitioner, i.e., Mr. Uma Shankar Bhartia.