MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) ORDER passed in LA. No. 476 of 1999 in o. S, No. 70 of 1995 dated 7-9-1999 by the junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

( 2 ) PETITIONER is the first defendant in the said suit O. S. No. 70 of 1995 filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein for declaration of plaint schedule properties. Written statements have also been filed on behalf of the defendants. However, the first defendant who is the petitioner in this revision has filed LA. No. 476 of 1999 under order 16 Rule 14 CPC requiring the Court below to summon the second plaintiff in the suit either as a Court witness or as a witness on his behalf (petitioner/first defendant s behalf) in order to elicit certain information with regard to the suit schedule properties.

( 3 ) THE Court below dismissed the said LA. No. 476 of 1999 by the impugned order dated 7-9-1999 holding that summoning of a party to the suit proceedings as a witness by the other party on his behalf is unknown to law, against which this revision is filed.

( 4 ) I have heard Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 7-9-1999 passed by the Court below.

( 5 ) IT must be said that filing an application under Order 16 Rule 14 of c. P. C. by either party to the suit proceedings seeking to summon any person including a party to the suit and not called as a witness by a party to the suit, is permissible. Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code of civil Procedure postulates thus:"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. "

( 6 ) A reading of the above provision 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.

( 7 ) LEGISLATURE has felt the need for adirect 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 exercised by the Courts guardedly and not as a matter of routine.

( 8 ) A party who presents a petition under Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC, therefore, is required to convince the Court by assigning sufficient reasons seeking the assistance of the Court for summoning a person as a witness including a party to the suit. As long as the Court is not satisfied with the reasons assigned by such party which invokes this provision, the Court shall not act upon such a request.

( 9 ) IN this case, the petitioner who is thefirst defendant in the suit O. S. No. 70 of 1995 has invoked the provisions under Order 16 rule 14 CPC seeking to examine the second plaintiff either as a Court witness or as a witness on his behalf, by filing LA. No. 476 of 1999. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I. A. , the petitioner has not properly enlisted the reasons seeking the assistance of the Court in that regard. The Court below, however, dismissed the said I. A. holding that summoning of a party to the suit proceedings as a witness by the other party on his behalf is unknown to law. Probably, dismiss

Click Here to Read the rest of this document