1 2025:CGHC:58653 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 556 of 2025 Ashish Kumar Pandey S/o Vijay Kumar Pandey Aged About 35 Years Currently, R/o. Quarter No. 15/a, Street-24, Sector-7, Police Station - Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil and District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Smt. Ankita Pandey W/o Ashish Kumar Pandey Aged About 30 Years Currently, R/o Type-3, DS 203, Kirandul, Police Station - Kirandul, Tehsil - Bade Bacheli, District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.06 11:40:21 +0530 2 “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the Civil Suit no. 16A/2024 pending before the Ld. Judge, Family Court, Dantewada, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 07/04/2025 passed by the Ld. Judge, Family Court, Dantewada, District-South Bastar, Dantewada in Civil Suit no. 16A/2024 and further be pleased to allow the application of the petitioner filed under Order 16, Rule 1 read with section 151 of the CPC, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.” 3. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that the petitioner/defendant, Ashish Kumar Pandey, is a qualified professional working as a Technology Lead at Infosys, Hyderabad, who married the respondent- Ankita Pandey on 18.02.2022 at Raipur. The behaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner and his in-laws was extremely aggressive, violent, and filled with anger. Despite the petitioner’s best efforts to fulfill his marital obligations, the cruelty of the respondent continued unabated. She frequently threatened to falsely implicate the petitioner and his family members in frivolous criminal cases. Ultimately, she lodged a false case at Durg against the petitioner and his family and left the matrimonial home without any cause. Subsequently, in 2022, she filed an application for maintenance before the competent Court at Dantewada (C.G.). She also filed a civil suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Dantewada in 2024. Notices were issued to the petitioner/defendant, and the matter is presently pending. In furtherance of her mala-fide intention to harass the petitioner and his family, the respondent filed a frivolous complaint dated 27.05.2024 against the petitioner’s father before the Vigilance 3 Department, Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP), where he is employed. An inquiry was conducted on the basis of her complaint. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner’s father was never furnished a copy of the complaint, which is highly irregular, as an employee facing a departmental inquiry is entitled to such documents. The application dated 04.02.2025 seeking a copy of the complaint and the reply of the Vigilance Department dated 13.03.2025 denying the same are annexed as Annexure P/3 (colly.). Thereafter, the petitioner’s father preferred an appeal before the Chief Managing Director, BSP on 19.03.2025, requesting a copy of the complaint, which was again denied. The appeal dated 19.03.2025 and the rejection letter dated 27.03.2025 are annexed as Annexure P/4 (colly.). A second appeal was then filed before the Central Information Commission (CIC), New Delhi on 14.04.2025, annexed as Annexure P/5. The bona-fides of the petitioner are evident from the fact that his request to bring the vigilance complaint on record is genuine and not intended to delay proceedings. During the respondent’s cross-examination before the Family Court, Dantewada, she was specifically questioned about the vigilance complaint in Para 36, where she falsely stated on oath that she had not filed any such complaint. When further questioned, she avoided answering. The suit filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the HMA is nothing but a sham attempt to portray herself as the victim, while in reality she has repeatedly misused legal processes to harass the petitioner and his family. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC on 24.03.2025 before the Family Court, Dantewada, seeking summons to the Vigilance Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, as a witness, since the inquiry on the respondent’s complaint had been completed but the complaint was denied to the petitioner’s father. 4. However, the Family Court, by order dated 07.04.2025, dismissed the 4 application on the grounds that the matter concerns only the petitioner and respondent, no documents regarding any appeal against Bhilai Steel Plant's (BSP’s) refusal had been filed, and that the application was made at a belated stage. The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and violative of the principles of natural justice, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Hence the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, erroneous, contrary to law, and liable to be set aside. The Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC on the ground that no document had been filed showing any appeal against the RTI refusal by BSP. It is respectfully submitted that the pendency or existence of an RTI appeal has no bearing whatsoever on the question of summoning a witness. The challenge to an RTI refusal and the summoning of a material witness operate in entirely different legal spheres, and the latter cannot be denied on the basis of the former. The very appeal which the Trial Court relied upon while rejecting the application did, in fact, exist, as evidenced by the appeal dated 19.03.2025 preferred by the petitioner’s father. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that no document had been filed is wholly unjustified and contrary to the record. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the object of Order 16 Rule 1 CPC is to ensure a fair trial by enabling parties to present relevant evidence through witnesses. By refusing to summon the Vigilance Officer whose testimony is crucial the Trial Court effectively deprived the petitioner of his right to present a complete and meaningful defence, thereby causing serious prejudice. The Trial Court committed a grave error in rejecting the petitioner’s application without considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. Order 16 Rule 1 CPC provides a statutory mechanism for securing 5 the attendance of witnesses who may give evidence or produce documents relevant to the case. The Trial Court overlooked this fundamental purpose. The Trial Court further failed to appreciate that the said provision empowers the Court to permit additional witnesses, even if they were not part of the initial witness list, provided sufficient cause is shown. In the present case, the petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause, and allowing the Vigilance Officer’s examination would not cause any hardship or prejudice to the plaintiff. The petitioner’s request to summon the witness is not an afterthought. It is directly connected to the issues in the suit, as reflected in the plaintiff’s cross-examination wherein she categorically denied filing any complaint before the Vigilance Departmentan assertion that is prima facie false. Her contradictory statements constitute perjury and justify the petitioner’s omission in not originally including the Vigilance Officer in the witness list. In these circumstances, the order dated 07.04.2025 deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. If the petitioner succeeds in proving that the plaintiff did, in fact, file the said complaint while falsely denying it, the revelation would have a material and substantial bearing on the outcome of the proceedings. Hence, the petitioner cannot be denied a fair opportunity on the basis of procedural technicalities, which are intended to advance not obstruct the cause of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection to the submission made by the petitioner and also has no objection if the prayer made in the present petiton is allowed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the object of Order 16 Rule 1 6 CPC is to ensure fair trial by enabling parties to adduce relevant evidence through witnesses. The rejection of the petitioner’s application on the basis that no document was filed showing appeal against RTI refusal is wholly misplaced. The issue of an RTI appeal is entirely extraneous to the question of summoning a witness, and the Trial Court’s reasoning reflects a misappropriation of law. Thus, the finding of the Trial Court is factually incorrect. The testimony of the Vigilance Officer is of material significance, particularly in light of the plaintiff’s explicit denial during cross-examination regarding the filing of the vigilance complaint. Whether the respondent filed such a complaint, and whether she falsely denied it, are issues that may have substantial bearing on the adjudication of the dispute. Denying the petitioner an opportunity to produce such a witness amounts to grave prejudice. Even otherwise, Order 16 Rule 1 CPC permits summoning of additional witnesses upon sufficient cause, even if they were not included in the original witness list. The petitioner has satisfactorily explained the omission. No hardship or prejudice would be caused to the respondent by summoning the said witness. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the material available on record, and the fact that the respondent has no objection if the prayer made in the present petiton be allowed, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 suffers from illegality, perversity, and non-application of mind, and warrants interference by this Court. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Dantewada, District – South Bastar Dandewada (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 16A/2024 is set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - husband, and further afford opportunity to produce the evidence regarding summoning of the relevant 7 witnesses, and thereafter, proceed with the matter in accordance with law, expeditiously. 10. According, this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti