The court has the discretion to summon a court witness under Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. and the application by the parties may be considered as bringing to the notice of the court the necessity for examining a court witness.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revision petition at the instance of the defendant arises out of an application filed under Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. to summon Semanu Yellappareddy and examine him as a court witness.

2. The court below declined to do so holding that the defendant cannot as a matter of right seek the examination of a person as a court witness and it is purely discretionary and the court may do so on its own accord only.

3. Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. is as follows:—

“14. 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 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. Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. provides that the court may of its own initiative or suo motu cause any person to be examine as a witness though either of the parties did not choose to take steps for summoning such person as a witness. This power obviously intended in the interests of justice is aimed at clarifying certain situations and remove ambiguities and fill up lacuna and thereby further justice.

5. The parties may refrain from summoning a crucial witness in the event of their apprehension of full fledged support and in such a situation the court may summon such person to give evidence to arrive at the correct factual picture and this witness is called a ‘court witness’. Order 16 Rule 14 visualises the initiative by the court only to examine any person and it is for the court to consider of its own accord the necessity of invoking power under this rule without propulsion or application by the parties. The exercise of this power is in the nature of “self-starter” without extraneous pressure or pull. The court below while declining to invoke the power appears to have been swayed by consideration that the court is precluded from doing so at the instance of the either party. It is true that the Court is not obligated to invoke the power at the instance of the parties and the parties have no right to move an application under this rule. But however either of the parties can bring to the notice of the court the necessity for examining any person as court witness. On such application the court may scan the totality of facts and circumstances apart from the situations projected by the parties and arrive at an independent conclusion as to the necessity of a court witness. The parties are not totally barred from moving an application and the court is not bound to take action on the averments or allegations contained in the application and it is the sole discretion of the court. The application by the parties may be considered as passing on the information so that the court may examine the issue in-depth on the facts and circumstances set out in the application and other aspects.

6. The court below erred in holding that the application cannot be entertained as it is the court only that should take initiative in the matter. There is no bar for such application and the move by the parties may be considered as bringing to the notice of the court and thereupon it is for the court to invoke power under Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C.

7. The court below is directed to consider as to the necessity of examining court witness on the basis of the averments in the application and other aspects.

8. The order of the court below is set aside C.R.P. allowed.

9. No costs.