Omission From Witness List Does Not Bar Summons If Sufficient Reasons Are Shown: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court at Goa on 21 October held that a party may summon a witness whose name was omitted from the original witness list if it provides sufficient reasons for doing so, particularly when the evidence is necessary to resolve a dispute over GST invoices.

Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar partly allowed the defendant's petition challenging the trial court's refusal to summon the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and the Principal of Jain College of Engineering. The Bench held:

“This Court finds that Petitioner has given sufficient reasons for issuance of witness summons for examination of witness that would assist the Court to reach to a just and fair conclusion.”

The dispute arose from the construction of a residential bungalow in Goa. The plaintiff sought recovery of approximately Rs. 20.38 lakh, along with 18% annual interest, towards unpaid construction bills. The defendant disputed the construction agreement, alleged that the bills were forged and claimed that the GST number mentioned on the invoices did not exist.

The defendant sought to summon the Assistant Commissioner of CGST to verify the GST registration details and invoices. He also sought to summon the college principal to establish that the plaintiff was a student during the relevant period.

The trial court rejected both requests because the defendant had failed to submit his witness list within the prescribed time. It also considered his conduct indicative of an attempt to delay the proceedings.

The High Court noted that the defendant had earlier attempted to obtain the GST-related information through a Right to Information (RTI) application but had been unsuccessful. It found that this attempt provided sufficient reason to seek the court's assistance in summoning the CGST officer.

It explained that the law does not absolutely prohibit a party from summoning witnesses whose names do not appear on the original witness list. However, the party must explain why it seeks to summon them at a later stage.

Accordingly, the Bench permitted the defendant to summon the Assistant Commissioner of CGST to verify the disputed GST details but declined to summon the college principal because the proposed evidence was irrelevant to the dispute.

For the Petitioner: Advocate Dinesh Naik.

For the Respondents: Advocates V. Braganza and Sagar Rivankar.