B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition under art. 227 of the constitution of India is directed against the Order, dated 26-10-2004, made in i. a. No. 1523 of 2004 in o. s. No. 639 of 1997 on the file of the learned i additional senior civil judge, visakhapatnam, whereunder the learned judge allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff to summon two witnesses viz. , V. Raj Kumar and Capt. P. Jacob Rao, in the interest of Justice.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT/plaintiff got himself examined as P. W. 1 and another witness was examined as P. W. 2. On behalf of the petitioners/defendants d. ws. 1 and 2 were examined and their evidence was closed.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the petitioners/defendants did not examine one V. Raj Kumar who dealt with the matter concerned to the suit. Likewise, the surveyor of imsaco, Capt. P. Jacob Rao, who was also present throughout, at the time of salvage operations, was not examined by the petitioners/defendants. Their evidence would be crucial in order to arrive at just and proper conclusions in the suit. It is also the case of the respondent/ plaintiff that the petitioners/defendants who were supposed to examine them in the normal course, have purposefully avoided, in order to suppress the facts.

( 4 ) THE said application has been opposed by the petitioners/defendants mainly on the ground that so far as V. Raj Kumar is concerned, he is one of the officers of the defendants-insurance company and virtually defendant himself and the present application amounts to calling upon the defendant to give evidence on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff. It is unknown to law and such a practice has always been deprecated by the courts. So far as, capt. Jacob rao is concerned, the final joint report of the surveyors has already been filed and the said jacob rao is a signatory to the same and since the report is already filed, the question of examining him does not arise. The sum and substance of the contention appears to be that it is for the defendants to choose as to whom they propose to examine and the plaintiff cannot call upon the defendants to be examined on his side.

( 5 ) THE learned trial judge upon consideration of the material available on record and on the facts and circumstances of the case, found that interest of Justice requires to accord permission to the respondent/plaintiff to examine the said two persons as witnesses for effective and proper adjudication of the matter. The learned judge came to the conclusion that there are no legal impediments for summoning them as witnesses. Even if, the said V. Raj Kumar is considered to be a defendant in the suit, there are no valid or justifiable reasons as to why he cannot be summoned as a witness.

( 6 ) SRI D. V. Sitharam Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, submits that the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff to summon the said two individuals to examine them as witnesses in the suit is misconceived and not maintainable in law. Summoning of V. Raj Kumar may amount to summoning the defendant to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, which is somewhat strange practice deprecated by the courts time and again. Defendants cannot be summoned to substantiate the case set up by the plaintiff in a given suit.

( 7 ) SRI Ramesh Ranganathan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, submitted that the civil court has ample power and couched with the jurisdiction to summon even a defendant as a witness if the interest of Justice so requires. Learned counsel submitted that the petition filed under Order xvi, Rule 7-a of the code of civil procedure, even if, found to be not maintainable cannot be dismissed on that ground since mentioning of a wrong provision of law cannot be any ground for dismissal of application. The power and jurisdiction of the court is traceable to Order xvi Rule 14 of the code of civil procedure under which even the defendant or a stran

Click Here to Read the rest of this document