ORDER :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. C.R.P. No. 1337 of 2019 is directed against the orders in I.A. No. 304 of 2019 and C.R.P. No. 1348 of 2019 is directed against the orders in I.A. No. 305 of 2019 in O.S. No. 35 of 2016 dated 23.04.2019, on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Vizainagaram.

2. The 1st defendant in the suit is the petitioner herein in both the revision petitions. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 2nd defendant in the suit.

3. The 1st respondent instituted the suit for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 03.06.2014 (document No. 2383/2014) executed in the name of the petitioner and for other reliefs. The trial in the suit apparently has come to a close and by the time I.A. Nos. 304 & 305 of 2019 came to be filed, arguments were to be submitted on behalf of the parties.

4. The 1st respondent filed I.A. No. 304 of 2019 in the trial Court to reopen his side for the purpose of exhibiting the certified copy of deposition of 1st defendant, who deposed as PW. 1 in O.S. No. 485 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. I.A. No. 305 of 2019, as seen from the order under revision, was filed to summon the petitioner as a Court witness to depose in this case under Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C. Both these petitions were allowed by the common order dated 23.04.2019.

5. It is now contended for the petitioner in these revision petitions that reopening the 1st respondent side for the purpose sought by him is improper and further, when both these petitions were filed at the fag end of the case, i.e., at the stage of arguments, the learned Judge erred in allowing them. It is further contended that the purpose for which these petitions were filed was not mentioned in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions in the trial Court, and particularly when the petitioner is not willing to depose against himself, the trial Court was not justified in asking him to enter the box. It is also contended that calling adversary as a witness by the opposite party is a bad practice which the Court shall not encourage, as is well laid down and as per authoritative pronouncements of Privy Council, as well as various High Courts. Thus mainly contending, it is requested on behalf of the petitioner to allow both these petitions and set aside the orders under revision.

6. The 1st respondent opposed these petitions mainly on the ground that in terms of Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C., the Court is entitled to summon any person including the party to the suit and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the petitioner did not choose to enter the witness box nor depose in the suit, he lost the opportunity to confront his deposition in O.S. No. 485 of 2012 referred to above on the file of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam where he has stated about the nature of the sale transactions concerned to the present suit and that the petitioner had categorically admitted his liability to pay the amounts concerned to O.S. No. 485 of 2012. Therefore, in these circumstances, when the petitioner purposely held himself back without deposing in the present suit, order of the trial Court to call him as a witness, exercising discretion under Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C., is just and appropriate. Thus contending on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is requested not to interfere with the orders under revision and to dismiss both these civil revision petitions.

7. Now, the point for determination is whether the trial Court is justified in directing issuance of summons against the petitioner to depose in the suit as a Court witness, on behalf of his adversary viz., the 1st respondent, under Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C.?

8. Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C., reads as follows:

"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 th