IMPORTANT POINT
Power under Order XVI. Rule 14 of CPC is to be exercised by Court on its own accord and not on insistence by a party to suit.

L.Narasimha Reddy, J.—The petitioner filed O.S.No.1198 of 2006 in the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against respondent No.1 herein for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, respondent No.1 got herself impleaded and made claim vis-a-vis the suit schedule property. Issues were framed and the trial of the suit commenced.

2. During the course of her evidence, respondent No.2 stated that the suit schedule property has accrued to her husband by way of exchange with Kadapa Zilla Parishad. In a way, she has projected independent title in respect of the property.

3. The petitioner filed I.A.No.648 of 2010 under Rules 6, 7 and 14 of Order 16 CPC with a prayer to summon the Chief Executive Officer of Kadapa Zilla Parishad as a witness to produce the records and documents mentioned therein and to speak about them. The application was opposed by the respondents. Through order, dated 22.09.2010, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. It was observed that Rule 14 of Order 16 CPC does not confer right upon a party to require the Court to summon or examine a person as a Court witness. The same is challenged in this revision.

4. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though Rules 6 and 7 of Order 16 CPC may not strictly apply to the facts of the case, it was competent, if not, obligatory for the trial Court to summon a witness on an application made by a party to the suit, in case, the necessity to summon the witness is established. He contends that once respondent No.2 has stated that the suit schedule property stood transferred in favour of her husband on an exchange by Kadapa Zilla Parishad, verification of records maintained by it and the examination of the witnesses become necessary. Placing reliance upon the judgments rendered by this Court in Kosuru Kalinga Maharaju v. Kosuru Kaikamma 2000(2) ALT 409 and Veesam Mohan Reddy v. Rebba Pedda Agaiah 2008(2) ALT 329, the learned counsel submits that the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law.

5. The petitioner wanted the trial Court to examine the Chief Executive Officer of Kadapa Zilla Parishad as a witness, with reference to the records maintained by Zilla Parishad pertaining to the suit schedule property. He invoked Rules 6, 7 and 14 of Order 16 CPC. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that it cannot be compelled to examine a person as a Court witness, and it is always for the Court itself to take such steps, on its own accord.

6. Order 16 CPC deals with the summoning and attendance of witnesses. Rule 1 thereof mandates that the parties shall submit a list of witnesses, whom they propose to examine, to give evidence or to produce documents, within 15 days from the date on which the issues are settled. In case a party is of the view that it cannot procure the presence of a witness, whom he intends to examine, he can file an application for obtaining summons for ensuring attendance of such witness. Sub-rule (3) enables the Court to permit a party to call a witness, though his name does not appear in the list of witnesses mentioned in sub-rule (1), provided sufficient cause for omission is shown. Rule 1A was added through amendment of the year 1976, enabling the parties to examine a witness without applying for summons under Rule 1. This, in brief, is the facility created the parties to the suit in the matter of examining the witnesses.

7. Rule 6 of Order 16 CPC enables a party to request the Court, to summon a person just to produce a document, without the necessity of any deposition. Rule 7 on the other hand empowers the Court to require a person, who is present in the Court, to give evidence or to produce documents, that are in his possession or power. Though the petitioner invoked these two Rules, none of them are relevant for the prayer made by him in the IA.

8. Rule 14 of Order 16 CPC, upon which emphasis is laid, reads as un