EPF & MP ACT,1952

SECTION 7A-
Analysis and Insight
DR. M.K. PANDEY ,LL.M,FCS,FCMA,MBA,PH.D
ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CELL-9871548899
advocatemanojpandey@gmail.com
 ASSESSMENT OF DUES /
RECOVERY
• In case of default, the dues can be assessed
under Section 7A of the Act.

• Proceedings u/s. 7A is quasi-judicial process.

• In case of belated remittance damages u/s. 14B

and interest u/s. 7Q are leviable
 SECTION 7-A
Determination of moneys due
from employers
Who has the Power of Determination:
1. Central Provident Fund Commissioner
2. Additional Central Provident Fund
Commissioner
3. Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner
4. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
5. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
 WHAT DO THEY DECIDE?
• Dispute regarding the applicability of Act to an
establishment, decide such dispute

• Determine amount due from any employer

under any provision of this Act, the Scheme or
the [Pension] Scheme or the [Insurance Scheme],
as the case may be, and for any of the aforesaid
purposes may conduct such inquiry as he may
deem necessary
 POWER VESTED WITH
AUTHOIRTY
• Power of the Authority i.e. the Commissioners as stated
in SLIDE NO.6 is same as to that vested in a court under
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for trying a suit in the
following matters:

 Enforcing the attendance of any person or examining

him on oath
 Requiring the discovery and production of document(s)
 Receiving evidence on affidavit
 Issuing commissions for the examination of
witnesses

 Any such inquiry shall be deemed to be a

judicial proceeding within the meaning of
sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of
section 196, of the Indian Penal Code
 PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE TO BE
COMPLIED

• Vide Sub-Section(3) no order shall be made

under Sub-Section(1) unless Employer is give
reasonable opportunity of Representation of the
Case.
• Where the employer, employee or any other
person required to attend the inquiry under sub-
section (1) fails to attend such inquiry without
assigning any valid reason or fails to produce any
document or to file any report or return when
called upon to do so.
• Officer conducting the inquiry may decide the
applicability of the Act or determine the amount
due from any employer, as the case may be, on
the basis of the evidence adduced during such
inquiry and other documents available on
record.
 REMEDY AVAILABLE TO EMPLOYER

• Order under sub-section (1) passed against an

employer ex parte:

Within three months from the date of communication

of such order.

• Apply to the officer for setting aside such order and

if he satisfies the officer that the show-cause notice
was not duly served or that he was prevented by
any sufficient cause from appearing when the
inquiry was held.
The officer shall make an order setting aside his
earlier order and shall appoint a date for
proceeding with the inquiry

PROVISO TO THE ABOVE STATED CLAUSES AND

TERMS
No such order shall be set aside merely on the
ground that there has been an irregularity in the
service of the show-cause notice, if the officer is
satisfied that the employer had notice of the date
of hearing and had sufficient time to appear
before the officer.
 PROVISION OF APPEAL
• Where an appeal has been preferred under this
Act against an order passed ex parte and such
appeal has been disposed of otherwise than on
the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the
appeal.
• No application shall lie under this sub-section for
setting aside the ex parte order.
 GROUND ON THE BASIS OF
WHICH ORDER CAN BE SET
ASIDE

• No order passed under this section shall be set

aside on any application under sub-section (4)
unless notice thereof has been served on the
opposite party
 CIRCULAR GUIDING THE
OPERATION OF SEC 7A
Circular dated 6th August 2014 Guidelines for
carrying out 7A Proceedings, brief of which is
as follows:-

Inquiries should be initiated only after

actionable and verifiable information if
placed for consideration of the
Compliance Officers.
Following could be the Source information for initiation of enquiries:-

a. A system generated report of probable/and/or actual defaults

based on receipts/remittance position of the establishments.

b. Mapping of individual establishments regarding the amount

remitted as well as the number of employees for whom the

establishment is remitting the dues.

[Remittance drop in excess of Rs. 10,000/- Ten Thousand] and 15%.

Membership drop in excess of Fifty Members and 15%.]
b. Verifiable Complaints or information received
from the general public at large may be another
source for initiation of investigations and/or
enquiry.

c. Reports submitted by the Enforcement officers

The Circular also inter alia provide following
procedure:

i. Information received about default will be

entered in a Central Register to be maintained
on a Central Server.

ii. On Receipt of the information, Notice shall be

issued to the Establishment enclosing the
information on the basis of which the instant
notice has been issued. If the establishment
accepts the contents of the Notice, than the
matter may be verified for the further necessary
action.
• If no response is received then the EO shall be
advised to investigate and file a report in the
matter. The Investigation Report of the EO shall
be accordingly to the “Form of Inspection
Report” as issued vide EPF, Headquarters Circular
No. C-III/110001/4/2(25) 2014/ HQRS/web
portal/10398 dated 30-07-2014 (at Sl. No. 307
Officer Orders/Circulars-2014-15).

• The Compliance Branch shall examine the

investigation report submitted by the EO and
decide whether any case is made out for
initiation of Quasi Judicial Enquiries.
• If, on the basis of the report of the EO, it is
decided that it is fit case for initiation of Enquiry
U/s. 7A of the Act, then the report of the EO and
observations thereon of the compliance Branch
shall be forwarded to the Assessing Officer for
initiation of an enquiry U/s. 7A of the Act.

• Before Recommending any case, the Compliance

Branch shall specifically verify, whether any
report/record is available on the file indicating
the status of the establishment, i.e. whether it is
a closed establishment etc
• Complete Investigation Report should be
available on record before initiation of enquiry is
recommended by the Compliance Branch. In
cases where the Complete report is not received
the compliance Branch shall record reasons in
writing for initiating the proposal for the said
enquiry.

• No enquiry shall be initiative unless a prima facie

case exist on the basis of the Said Report
Employees' Provident Fund Scheme,
1952

• Para 26 of the above stated scheme : Deposit of

the contribution more than the statutory
quantification provided an approach is made by
both the employer and employee before the
appropriate authority for enrolment and an
undertaking in writing is given by the employer
to pay the administrative charges.
SOME IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS ON 7A
BY THE SUPERIOR COURTS

IN M/s. Nasurddin Bidi Merchant Limited Vs.

CPFC (Civil Appal No. 4285/1998)

“Assessment of the dues made by applying the

best principle of average and the balance sheets
in the absence of detailed record of workers is
appropriate and sufficient as it is the liability of
the employer to produce the details of wages
that have been paid.”
Whether notice U/s. 7A can be
Challenged:-

KCP Vs. ITO 146 ITR 284

Notice issued without recording of reasons or
before recording of reasons and any assessment
in pursuance whether of is bad in law. This was
held with reference to Notice U/s. 148 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961.
• The requirement of natural justice is thus a
common feature in all cases where a decision or
order may adversely affect an individual. It is also
significant that Section 11A of the Central Excise
Act, 1944 enables a Central Excise Officer to
recover the duty which has been not levied,
short paid or erroneously refunded.

• Neither the Central Excise Act, nor the rules

made there under have set out what the
requirement of a Notice is but it is a well settle
Practice for a notice U/s. 11A to Set out details of
the allegations against the Assessee.
• The documents on the basis of which the
charges are levied are also to be
informed/supplied to the Assessee.

• The Importance of following the principles of

Natural justice in all quasi judicial proceedings
has been repeatedly emphasized by the Supreme
Court and the High Courts.

• After careful examination of case law, the Supreme Court

once again emphasizes the need for a show cause notice
to inform a Noticee all the charges that are against him.
Detailed Guidelines as to what constitutes reasonable
particulars where also set out by the Supreme Court.
• The Court ruled that it would not enforce, and so
far as the P.F. authorities concerned it was held
in the case of a Hi. Tach Vocational Training
Centre Vs. APFC 2011 ICLR 698, Delhi High Court
that the proceedings held under Section 14(B) of
P.F. Act to levy damages are of Quasi-Judicial
nature required in the P.F. authorities to pass a
speaking order.
 Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC
Mazdoor Union

• In Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor

Union, SC held that “the audi alteram partem”
rule, in essence, enforce the equality clause in
Art 14 and it is applicable not only to quasi-
judicial bodies but also to administrative order
adversely affecting the party in question unless
the rule has been excluded by the Act in
question
 MANEKA GANDHI V/S UOI

Art 14 is an authority for the proposition that the

principles of natural justice are an integral part of
the guarantee of equality assured by Art. 14 an
order depriving a person of his civil right passed
without affording him an opportunity of being
heard suffers from the vice of violation of natural
justice.
Savitri Chandrakesh Pal Vs. State
of Maharashtra
• In any quasi judicial proceeding non-supply of adverse
material to the affected person but supply thereof to the
authority taking decision against him on that basis
constitutes violation of rules of natural justice.

• In other words, the material supplied or shown to the

decision making authority without disclosing it to the
person against whom it is to be used clearly constitutes
breach of principles of natural justice which is very much
applicable to the quasi-judicial proceedings.
The guidelines have been provided to the Quasi Judicial
bodies which are governed as under:-
17. This Court in exercise of powers conferred under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prescribes
the following procedure to be adopted by quasi-judicial
authorities including the Ministers, Secretaries, officials
and litigants while hearing and determining appeals,
revisions, review applications and interim applications etc.:

• (1) Memo of appeal or revision, review and or any

application shall specifically mention under which
enactment and/or under what provisions of law the said
appeal/ review/ revision or application is filed.

• (2) The appellant/ applicant shall give a synopsis of

concise dates and events along with the memo of appeal
or revision.
• (3) The appeal, revision and/or application shall be filed
within a period stipulated under the law governing the
subject from the receipt of the order/ decision which is
impugned in the above matter. In the event of delay, it
should only be entertained along with application for
condonation of delay.

• (4) At the time of presentation of the appeal, review or

revision, the applicant shall, if, filed in person, establish
his identity by necessary documents or he shall file
proceedings through authorised agent, and/or advocate.

• (5) The application shall be accompanied by sufficient

copies for every opponents/ respondents and also supply
2 extra copies for the authorities
(6) For issuance of summons to the opponents/
respondents, court fees/ postal stamps of sufficient
amount shall be affixed on the application form/ memo
of appeal or revision as the case may be.

(7) In addition to service through the authority, appellant/

applicant may separately send the additional copies to
each of the opponents/ respondents by registered post
acknowledgement due and may file affidavit of service
along with evidence of dispatch. The postal and
acknowledgment alone should be treated as evidence of
service in the event of service through postal authority.
(8) In the event of an urgency of obtaining an interim relief like stay,
injunction/ other interim order or direction or status-quo etc, a
specific case of urgency should be made out in the application,
which the authority may entertain subject to the brief reasons
recorded. The said order shall also be communicated immediately
to all the effected persons. The proof of timely dispatch of the
Registered A.D.s and all the acknowledgments shall be separately
maintained.

(9) If there is real urgency, the concerned authority may grant ex

parte interim/ ad-interim relief for the reasons to be recorded for a
particular period only within which time the service on the
concerned opponents/ respondents shall be effected. Appellant/
applicant should file affidavit of service, if such party requires early
hearing or continuation for interim relief or of an appeal, revision
or review. (10) The competent authority shall also communicate the
next date of hearing to all the parties along with time and place and
shall, as far as possible, adhere to the said date and time of hearing
• (10) The competent authority shall also communicate the
next date of hearing to all the parties along with time
and place and shall, as far as possible, adhere to the said
date and time of hearing.

• 11) The concerned official in every department should be

asked to remain present at the time of hearing and assist
the concerned authority in the matter.

• (12) Reasonable sufficient time be provided between the

date of receipt of notice and the actual date of hearing. If
any party is unable to remain present at the time of
hearing for a sufficient cause, one further opportunity
should be given to such party for hearing.
• (13) The authority hearing quasi-judicial matters shall
duly fix a date, time and venue for such hearing. Such
authority shall refrain from interacting with third party
during the course of hearing either in person or on
phone and shall not do any act which would tend to
affect or prejudice fair hearing

• (14) A speaking order shall be passed by the authority

hearing the matter as early as possible after the hearing
is concluded and, as far as possible, within a period of
four to eight weeks from the conclusion of the hearing,
on the basis of the record before it as well as the
submissions made at the hearing. The order must
contain reasons in support of the order.
• 15)The authority shall not receive information or
documents after the hearing is concluded and/or shall
not pass the speaking order on the basis of such
documents and/or information unless such material is
brought to the notice of the parties to the proceedings
following rules of natural justice.

• 16) The order passed by the quasi-judicial authority on

the hearing shall be forthwith communicated to all the
parties by Registered A.D.

• 17) No application or request or prayer from the political

worker, Member of Legislative Assembly, Member of
Parliament or third party shall be entertained in the
quasi-judicial proceedings unless such person is a party
respondent or intervenor in the proceedings.
• 18) The order pronounced shall be communicated to the
parties immediately.

• 19) Record of hearing shall be meticulously maintained in

a separate Roznama.

• 20) The notings of concerned officials/ law assistants to

assist the authority shall include only content of facts
and legal provisions along with case laws, if any

• 21) The notings made by the law officials/concerned

officials shall not be in the form of order
 Kishan G. Majithia vs Union Of India (UOI)
And Ors. on 21 February, 1997

• Order of PF Commissioner does not contain the basis on

which the authority determined the strength of the workmen
employed by the appellant.

• By the said judgment the High Court, after setting aside the
order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
has remitted the matter to the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner to pass a fresh order after hearing the
appellant giving reasons for the conclusions reached by him
particularly as regards employment of 100 workmen by the
appellant.
Question: Whether the Commissioner
who is the statutory authority has
exercised powers vested in him to collect
the relevant evidence before
determining the amount payable under
the said Act??
• Food Corporation of India Vs. Provident Fund
Commissioner & Anr [1989] INSC 327 (26
October 1989)

• Commissioner is authorised to 'enforce

attendance in person and also to examine any
person on oath. He has the power requiring the
discovery and production of documents. This
power was given to the Commissioner to decide
not abstract questions of law, but only to
determine actual concrete differences in
payment of contribution and other dues by
identifying the workmen.
• The Commissioner should exercise all his powers
to collect all evidence and collate all material
before coming to proper conclusion. That is the
legal duty of the Commissioner. It would be
failure to exercise the jurisdiction particularly
when a party to the proceedings requests for
summoning evidence from a particular person.
Marathwada Gramin Bank Karamchari Sanghatana and
Another -vs- Management of Marathwada Gramin Bank
and Others, reported in 2011 (4) L.L.N. 422 (SC).

Voluntary payment of excess amount over and above the

statutory amount cannot act as a deter on the part of the
petitioner to apply the statutory provisions and,
therefore, the authorities cannot initiate any proceedings
under Section 7A of the said Act which culminated into a
direction upon the petitioner to pay the excess amount
over the statutory quantification
Modern Transportation Consultation Services Private
Limited & Anr. v Central Provident Fund
Commissioner Employees Provident Fund
Organisation & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7698 of 2009

• Employers may consider revisiting / reviewing contributions

omitted to be made by them under the assumption that
employees that may have withdrawn all their accumulations
under any fund (not being one constituted under the 1952
Scheme), by treating them as excluded employees. This would
ensure that the employers avoid scrutiny by the provident
fund authorities and determination of a sum due from the
employer by taking recourse to Section 7A of the EPF Act.
 UNION OF INDIA V. NARAYAN ,1989 LAB.I.C.
854

• Determination of liability of the employer under

Section7A of
the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, cannot be
gone into in a civil proceedings, as the civil suits
are barred to decide such issues impliedly that
are governed under Section 7A of
the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952,
Meghdoot Cinema vrs. RPF Commissioner
(1988) 57 FIR (SOC) 7:1987

If an establishment failed to avail of the

opportunity afforded under Section 7A, the
authority concerned could take a decision on the
basis of available material and accordingly, the
Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner may upon the
available information and documents bought forth
can pass an ex-parte Order.
 P.M.Patel & Sons v. Union of India (AIR 1987,
SC447)

The applicability of the Act to any class of

employees is not determined or decided by any
proceeding under Section 7A of the Act but under
the provisions of the Act itself. When the Act
became applicable to the employees in question,
the liability arises. What is done under Section 7A
of the Act is only determination or quantification
of the same.
Mr. E.S. Sanjeeva Rao vs Central Bureau Of
Investigation, May 2012

• QUESTION : Whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

while passing an order under section 7A is a Judge within the
definition under section 19 of the IPC & section 2 of the Judges
(Protection) Act, 1985?

• Upon the analysis and going into the intricacies of the Relevant
Defining Sections of the related the Statutes the Court had the view
that :
“Perusal of the relevant provisions, therefore, in our view clearly
reveal that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is empowered
by law under section 7-A in a case where a dispute arises regarding
the applicability of the Act to establishment,
decide such dispute and determine the amount
due from the employer under the scheme and for
the purpose of conducting inquiry he has been
vested with same powers as are vested in the
Court for trying a suit under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 and the said inquiry is also
deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the
meaning of Sections 193 and 228 and for the
purpose of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code.
The said order which is passed is appealable and
an appeal can be preferred before the Tribunal
and the order passed by the Tribunal attains
finality under section 7N. The said order passed
under Section 7A can also be reviewed under
Section 7B or re-determined under Section 7C and,
lastly, for non-payment of the said amount, the
employer can be prosecuted and penalty can be
imposed under section 14 and recovery also can
be made under the procedure laid down under
Section 8 .
 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER-II & ANOTHER v. M/S.SHRINE
VELANKANNI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,
2009 Writ L.R. 326

The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madurai Bench

of the Madras High Court, the Decision the
proceedings contemplated under Section 7-A is a
primary proceeding for determining the
contribution from the employer, but proceeding
under Section 14- B is entirely different.
The Division Bench has further held that the
authorities empowered to take action to recover
damages from the under Section 14-B, are
different from the authorities constituted for the
purpose of determining the dues under
Section 7-A of the Act.
Kapra Mazdoor Ekta
Union vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills
Ltd
.‟, (2005) 13 SCC 777
The Hon’ble Apex Court stated that Court or quasi-judicial
authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to
do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if the
court or the quasi-judicial authority is vested with power of
review by express provision or by necessary implication. The
procedural review belongs to a different category. In such a
review, the court or quasi-judicial authority having jurisdiction to
adjudicate proceeds to do so, but in doing so commits (sic
ascertains whether it has committed) a procedural illegality
which goes to the root of the matter and invalidates the
proceeding itself, and consequently the order passed therein.
 Cases where a decision is rendered by the court
or quasi-judicial authority without notice to the
opposite party or under a mistaken impression
that the notice had been served upon the
opposite party, or where a matter is taken up for
hearing and decision on a date other than the date
fixed for its hearing, are some illustrative cases in
which the power of procedural review may be
invoked. In such a case the party seeking review or
recall of the order does not have to substantiate
the ground that the order passed suffers from an
error apparent on the face of the record or any
other ground which may justify a review.
He has to establish that the procedure followed by
the court or the quasi-judicial authority suffered
from such illegality that it vitiated the proceeding
and invalidated the order made therein, inasmuch
as the opposite party concerned was not heard for
no fault of his, or that the matter was heard and
decided on a date other than the one fixed for
hearing of the matter which he could not attend
for no fault of his. In such cases, therefore, the
matter has to be reheard in accordance with law
without going into the merit of the order passed.
The order passed is liable to be recalled and
reviewed not because it is found to be erroneous,
but because it was passed in a proceeding which
was itself vitiated by an error of procedure or
mistake which went to the root of the matter and
invalidated the entire proceeding. In Grindlays
Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal [1980
Supp SCC 420 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 309] it was held
that once it is established that the respondents
were prevented from appearing at the hearing due
to sufficient cause, it followed that the matter
must be reheard and decided again."
Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Limited v. A
ssistant
provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.

The expression “any amount due from an employer”

appearing in sub- section (2) of Section 11 has to be
interpreted keeping in view the object of the Act and other
provisions contained therein including sub- section (1) of
Section 11 and Sections 7-A, 7-Q, 14-b and 15(2) which
provide for determination of the dues payable by the
employer, liability of the employer to pay interest in case
the payment of the amount due is delayed and also pay
damages, if there is default in making contribution to the
Fund.
 If any amount payable by the employer becomes
due and the same is not paid within the stipulated
time, then the employer is required to pay interest
in terms of the mandate of Section 7-Q. Likewise,
default on the employer’s part to pay any
contribution to the Fund can visit him with the
consequence of levy of damages
ABUSE OF POWERS U/S 7A
• PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
• NO SOURCE OF BASIS OF INITIATION
• NON SHARING OF DOCUMENTS
• NO NOTICE PERIOD
• ARBITRARY SHIFTING THE NOTICE PERIOD
• SHOW CAUSE ARREST WARRANT
• NOT DECIDING INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS
• NON EXERCISEOF DUE POWERS FOR EQUIRY
• NON IDENTIFICATION OF BENEFICIARIES
• SUMMARY ASSESSENT
• IMPROPER INITATION OF ENQUIRY
 ORDER XI
DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION
RULE 1- Discovery by interrogatories

In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver
interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any
one or more of such parties and such interrogatories when delivered shall
have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of
such persons is required to answer :

Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to
the same party without an order for that purpose :

Provided also that interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in

question in the suit be deemed irrelevant, notwithstanding that they might be
admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness
 RULE 5- CORPORATIONS

Where any party to a suit is a corporation or a body of persons,

whether incorporated or not, empowered by law to sue or be
sued, whether in its own name or in the name of any officer or
other person, any opposite party may apply for an order
allowing him to deliver interrogatories to any member or officer
of such corporation or body, and an order may be made
accordingly.

RULE 12- APPLICATION FOR DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS

Any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to the Court for
an order directing any other party to any suit to make discovery
on oath of the documents which are or have been in his
possession or power, relating to any matter in question therein.
On the hearing of such application the Court may either refuse or adjourn
the same, if satisfied that such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary
at that stage of the suit, or make such order, either generally or limited to
certain classes of documents, as may, in its discretion be thought fit :

Provided that discovery shall not be ordered when and so far as the Court
shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the
suit or for saying costs.

RULE 14- Production of documents

It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency
of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon
oath of such of the documents in his possession or power,
relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall
think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when
produced, in such manner as shall appear just.
 RULE 18- ORDER OF INSPECTION

(1) Where the party served with notice under rule 15 omits to give such notice of
a time for inspection or objects to give inspection, or offers inspection elsewhere
than at the office of his pleader, the Court may, on the application of the party
desiring it, make an order for inspection in such place and in such manner as it
may think fit

Provided that the order shall not be made when and so far as the Court shall be
of opinion that, it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for
saving costs

(2) Any application to inspect documents, except such as are referred to in the
pleadings, particulars or affidavits of the party against whom the application is
made or disclosed in his affidavit of documents, shall be founded upon an
affidavit showing of what inspection is sought, that the party applying is entitled
to inspect them, and that they are in the possession or power of the other party.
The Court shall not make such order for inspection of such documents when and
so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing
fairly of the suit or for saving costs.
 ORDER XVI-
SUMMONING AND ATTENDANCE OF
WITNESSES
RULE 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 persons 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 party 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.]
 RULE 6- Summons to produce document

Any person may be summoned to produce a document, without

being summoned to give evidence, and any person summoned
merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied
with the summons if he causes such document to be produced
instead of attending personally to produce the same.

RULE 8- Summons how served

Every summons under this Order, not being a summons

delivered to a party for service under rule 7A, shall be served
as nearly as may be in the same manner as a summons to a
defendant and the rules in Order V as to proof of service
shall apply in the case of all summonses served under this
rule.
 ORDER XIX-AFFIDAVITS
RULE 1- Power to order any point to be proved by affidavit

Any Court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any
particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that the
affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such
conditions as the Court thinks reasonable:

Provided that where it appears to the Court that either party

bona fide desires the production of a witness for cross-
examination, and that such witness can be produced, an order
shall not be made authorizing the evidence of such witness to
be given by affidavit.
 RULE-2 Power to order attendance of deponent
for cross-examination

(1) Upon any application evidence may be given by

affidavit, but the Court may, at the instance of
either party, order the attendance for cross-
examination f the deponent.

(2) Such attendance shall be in Court, unless the

deponent is exempted from personal appearance
in Court or the Court otherwise directs.
(3) Matters to which affidavits shall be confined

(1) Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the

deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on
interlocutory applications, on which statements of his
belief may be admitted; provided that the grounds thereof
are stated.

(2) The costs of every affidavit which shall unnecessarily

set forth matters of hearsay or argumentative matter, or
copies of or extracts from documents, shall (unless the
Court otherwise directs) be paid by the party filing the
same.
 ORDER 26- COMMISSIONS
RULE 1- Cases in which Court may issue commission to examine witness
Any Court may in any suit issue a commission for the examination on
interrogatories or otherwise of any person resident within the local limits
of its jurisdiction who is exempted under this Code from attending the
Court or who is from sickness or infirmity unable to attend it :

Provided that a commission for examination on interrogatories shall not

be issued unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks it necessary
so to do.

Explanation.-The Court may, for the purpose of this rule, accept a

certificate purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner as
evidence of the sickness or infirmity of any person, without calling the
medical, practitioner as a witness.
RULE 6- Court to examine witness pursuant to Commission
Every Court receiving a commission for the examination of any person shall
examine him or cause him to be examined pursuant thereto.

RULE 9-Commissions to make local investigations

In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to

be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any
matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of
any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or
damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a
commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to
make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court:
Provided that, where the State Government has made rules
as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued,
the Court shall be bound by such rules.
 RULE 11- Commission to examine or adjust accounts
In any suit in which an examination or adjustment of the accounts is
necessary, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks
fit directing him to make such examination or adjustment.

RULE 19- Cases in which High Court may issue commission to examine
witness

(1) If a High Court is satisfied-

(a) that a foreign court situated in a foreign country wishes
to obtain the evidence of a witness in any proceeding before it,

(b) that the proceeding is of a civil nature, and

(c) that the witness is residing within the limits of the High
Court's appellate jurisdiction, it may, subject to the provisions of
rule 20, issue a commission for the examination of such witness.
 (2) Evidence may be given of the matters specified in
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1)-

(a) by a certificate signed by the consular officer of the

foreign country of the highest rank in India and transmitted
to the High Court through the Central Government, or

(b) by a letter of request issued by the foreign Court and

transmitted to the High Court through the Central
Government, or

(c) by a letter of request issued by the foreign Court and

produced before the High Court by a party to the
proceeding.
 O U
K Y
A N
TH