- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26637 WP No. 16528 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16528 OF 2026 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REGIONAL OFFICE, CRESCENT COURT K.M. ROAD, NO. 18, KRISHI BHAVAN 5TH FLOOR, OPP. HUDSON CIRCLE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD. KRISHIK BHAVAN, 6TH AND 5TH FLOOR HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. N SREENIVASULU @ NALLAGUTTA SREENIVASULU S/O VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O.NO. 1-113, V.KOTHAPALLE VILLAGE VEMULA MANDAL, KADAPPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH -516349. 2. SRI N RAJAGOPALAREDDY @ NAGIREDDY RAJAGOPALAREDDY S/O RAMIREDDY MAJOR Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26637 WP No. 16528 of 2026 R/O KALUVAYI NELLORE DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-524003. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE 'F' AND I.A. U/O 16 RULE 6 AND 7 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT / PETITIONER IN MVC NO. 5356/2024 PASSED BY THE XI A.S.J. AND ACJM, BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs: ”(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated: 19.01.2026 vide ANNEXURE 'F' and I.A. U/O 16 Rule 6 & 7 R/W Section 151 of CPC filed by the 2nd respondent / petitioner in MVC No. 5356/2024 passed by the XI A.S.J. & AC JM, Bengaluru. By allowing the above writ petition in the interest of justice and equity. (ii) Pass such other and further order, direction, writ, that this Hon'ble court may pleased to deems to fit, pass an order, on such facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Petitioner had filed an application under Order XVI Rule 6,7 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26637 WP No. 16528 of 2026 (CPC) to summon a private party to lead evidence on behalf of the petitioner - Insurance Company. The said application came to be dismissed and challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the said witness was required to be examined to establish the relationship between the claimant and the deceased in the accident, since there is a dispute relating there to. The MACT rejected the said application on the ground that there was no detail which had been produced indicating as to how the witnesses were related to the case and therefore dismissed the said application. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the said witness is required to establish that there is no relationship between the deceased and the claimant in the matter. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26637 WP No. 16528 of 2026 5. Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC reads as under: “1. List of witnesses and summons to witnesses: (1) On or before such date as the Court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such person for their attendance in Court. (2) A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. (3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such part shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), summonses referred to in this rule may be obtained by the parties on an application to the Court or to such officer as may be appointed by the Court in this behalf within five days of presenting the list of witnesses under sub-rule (1)” 6. In terms of Rule 1 sub-rule (1) of Order XVI, on or before such date as the court may appoint and not later than fifteen days from the date on which the issues are settled, the parties would be required to present in court a list of witnesses whom they - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26637 WP No. 16528 of 2026 propose to call either to give evidence or to produce document and obtain summons to such persons for their attendance in court. 7. In terms of Rule 1 sub-rule (2) of Order XVI, a party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned and in terms of Rule 1 sub-rule (3), the court may for reasons to be recorded permit a party to call whether by summoning through court or otherwise any witness other than those whose name appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1). For the purpose of exercising powers under Rule 1 sub-rule (3) of Order XVI, it is but required for the petitioner to categorically state the reasons for summoning a third party who is unrelated to the proceedings and he cannot lead evidence on behalf of the parties without sufficient cause having been shown by the applicant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26637 WP No. 16528 of 2026 8. Of course, the same would not apply to any official witness, but would apply only to a private witness. In the present matter, the person who is sought to be summoned is unrelated third party who is sought to be summoned to establish that there is no relationship between the deceased and the claimant. The petitioner would always be at liberty to establish the same in a manner known to law and not by summoning a person who is unrelated to the matter. 9. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the MACT. Hence, petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30