This Court ordered notice before admission on 1-7-2008 and granted interim stay for a limited period.

2. Sri Navin Kumar entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.

3. Sri K.Mahadev and Sri Navin Kumar, the Counsel representing respective parties made a request for the final disposal of the Civil Revision Petition.

4. Sri Mahadeva, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances the husband of the respondent who is a crucial witness and who worked as Sub-Inspector of Police at Kurnool at the relevant point of time cannot be examined by the revision petitioners in view of the relationship between the said Sub-Inspector of Police with the respondent. However, in the light of the fact that certain crucial facts are to be established, it may be just and proper to examine him as Court witness and such a request had been made despite the fact that certain decisions had been relied upon distinguishing the same on the ground that the facts are totally different and dismissing the application as not maintainable cannot be sustained.

5. Per contra, Sri Navin Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the respondent laid emphasis from the language of Order XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure and would maintain that the words "Court may of its own motion" would go to show that it is the discretion of the Court either to allow such application or dismiss such application and in the light of the reasons recorded by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, the present Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merit, the same to be dismissed.

6. Heard the Counsel on record.

7. The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the unsuccessful petitioners-defendants 1 to 7 in I.A.No.423/2008 in O.S.No.375/2004 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The said application was filed by the petitioners under Order XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) to summon the petition schedule witness as a Court witness. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool after recording the respective stands taken by the parties, having formulated the point for consideration at para 5, recorded reasons at paras 6 and 7 and ultimately dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred.

8. Before taking up further discussion, in the light of the rival contentions advanced by the Counsel on record, it may be appropriate to have a glance at Order XVI Rule 14 of the Code which deals with "Court may of its own accord summon as witnesses strangers to suit" reads as hereunder:-

"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 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."

9. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent as plaintiff instituted a suit praying for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dt.19-9-2001 and no doubt the petitioners had taken the defence denying the execution of the said agreement of sale. It is the case of the petitioners that the husband of the respondent by name G.Harinath Babu who worked as Sub- Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV Town Police Station, during the relevant time was the master mind behind this litigation and the said Sub-Inspector of Police as husband of the respondent issued a receipt for Rs.40,000/- dt.15-9-2001 and the respondent in her cross-examination denied the said receipt. It is also stated that the Sub-Inspector of Police being the husband of the