( 1 ) HEARD Sri Chinnapa Reddy, the counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri G. C. Shekar, the counsel representing the respondent.

( 2 ) ELABORATE submissions were made relating to the scope and ambit of Order 16, rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred to in short as "the Code" ). The revision petitioner had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition as against an order dated 17-3-2003 made in L. A. No. 338 of 2003 in O. S. No. 203 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, sattenapalli. The said application was moved by the respondent herein-defendant in the suit, under Order 16, Rule 14 read with section 151 of the Code, to summon witnesses and examine them as Court witnesses in the suit and pass suitable orders. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, sattenapalli, after recording certain reasons ultimately allowed the application holding that no prejudice or loss would be caused to the respondent-plaintiff in the said application, the revision petitioner herein, if the witnesses are examined as Court witnesses. Aggrieved by the same, the present c. R. P. is preferred.

( 3 ) ORDER 16, Rule 14 of the Code reads as under :"court may of its own accord summon as witnesses strangers to suit : Subject to the provisions of this Code as to attendance and appearance and to any law for the time being in force, where the Court at any time thinks it necessary to examine any person, including a party to the suit, and not called as a witness by a party to the suit the Court may, of its own motion, cause such person to be summoned as a witness to give evidence, or to produce any document in his possession, on a day to be appointed, and may examine him as a witness or require him to produce such document. "

( 4 ) IN K. S. Agha Mir Ahmad Shah v. Mir mudassir Shah, AIR 1944 PC 100 while dealing with the aspect of power of the Court to examine witnesses itself is discretionary, their Lordships of the Privy Council had observed that the power of the Court under order 16, Rule 14 to examine witnesses on its own motion is discretionary, where the courts in India have for very good reasons refused to exercise their discretion, their lordships of the Privy Council also would not exercise it. In P. Subrahmanyam Chetty v. Katari Ellappa Reddy, 1988 (1) Andh LT 279, while dealing with the scope and ambit of Order 16, Rule 14 of the Code, it was held that an application to summon and examine a person as Court witnesses may be considered as passing on the information and the Court may examine the issue and exercise its discretion. In Kosuru Kalinga maharaju v. Kosuru Kaikamma, 2000 (2) andh LT 409 : 2000 AIHC 786, this Court while dealing with the aforesaid provision held as under :"a reading of Rule 14 of Order 16 would leave no doubt in the mind to say that either party to the suit proceedings can summon a person including a party to the suit who is not called as a witness by a party to the suit, as a witness. Legislature has felt the need for a direct provision enabling the Court to summon a party for giving evidence as a witness to help curbing the malpractice of a party not appearing as a witness and forcing the other party to call him as a witness, and adjudicate the issues properly. What is laid down in the above provision is that if the Court is satisfied about such a necessity to cause any person to be examined as a witness, Court can summon such person as a witness. The emphasis is laid on the subjective satisfaction of the Court. However, this power is to be examined by the Courts guardedly and not as a matter of routine".

( 5 ) THE counsel for the revision petitioner made a serious attempt to show that the discretion was not exercised properly or cautiously. The counsel also maintained that this is a fit case where the certified copies could have been obtained and absolutely there is no necessity of examining these witnesses as Court witnesses and if the parties are per