The discretionary power of the court to summon witnesses under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC and the limitations on the parties' right to invoke the power of the court under this rule.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order, dated 20.07.2018 passed in I.A.No. 425 of 2018 in O.S.No. 21 of 2015 on the file of X Additional District Judge, Narsapur (for short “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Sri P. Rama Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2015 which was filed for grant of partition. The present impugned I.A.No. 425 of 2018 was filed before the trial Court by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC seeking to issue summons to the Manager, Andhra Bank, Narsapur to produce original Will dated 18.9.1992 to proceed with the trial of the suit. The same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 20.07.2018 on the ground that there are no bona-fides on the part of the petitioner to file the petition either on facts or under law to issue summons to produce the document. Aggrieved by the same the present civil revision petition is filed.

4. As seen from the material, it is observed that, this Court, vide order dated 21.08.2018, has granted interim stay as prayed for, and the same is extended from time to time. It is also observed that the sole respondent/plaintiff died, the respondents No. 2 and 3 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased-sole respondent/plaintiff vide order dated 27.3.2023 passed by this Court in I.A No. 1 of 2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the I.A No. 425 of 2018 under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC seeking to issue summons to the Manager, Andhra Bank, Narsapur to produce original Will dated 18.9.1992 as the said Will is very necessary to prove his case. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application erroneously. He further submits that the petitioner mainly relied on the registered Will dated 18.9.1992, so it is very crucial document to decide the matter between the parties. Unless and until, the said document is produced before the court and proved the averments in the document, the petitioner will not succeed his claim. One of the issues in the suit that the registered Will dated 18.9.1992 is valid or not, so the duty casted upon the petitioner/defendant to produce the said Will and proves the same in the Court of law to prove his bona-fides. But, the trial Court failed to appreciate either of the parties have not filed any list of witness and documents at the time of settlement of issues. He further submits that the Court below ought to have allow the petition and permit the petitioner to produce the Will dated 18.09.1992 and examine the validity of the Will in the interest of justice. Hence requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned order.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the present revision petition is not maintainable under law. The respondent/plaintiff filed his affidavit in the form of examination in chief on 9.3.2018 and the respondent took several adjournments for his cross examination. The said I.A. has been filed on 8.6.2018 to drag on the disposal of the suit at belated stage. The father of the respondent never revoked the Will dated 14.9.1987. He further submits that the petitioner has no right to sell the schedule property as it is their joint property. Lokam venkateswara Rao has no right to purchase the property and he is only binami to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner even did not mention the date and month of sale and registration of the property to Lokam Venkateswara Rao. Hence, as the preset revision is not maintainable, prayed to dismiss the same.

7. On hearing the submissions, this Court observed that the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for grant of partition of the plaint schedule property. When the matter came up for trial, the affidavit of respondent/plaintiff was filed