Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. A party to a suit does not have an automatic right to summon the opposite party to give evidence. The court has the discretion to consider whether the examination of the opposing party is necessary after the evidence of all witnesses is available, and can compel such examination only under specific jurisdictional provisions (!) (!) .

2. The court's power to examine a party or to compel a party to give evidence is explicitly provided under certain rules, notably R.14 of O. XVI of the Civil Procedure Code, which was amended to include parties as persons who can be examined if the court deems it necessary (!) (!) (!) .

3. The court has the authority to direct a party present in court to give evidence or produce documents, and to proceed against a party who refuses to give evidence without lawful excuse, including pronouncing judgment against that party (!) (!) .

4. The power to examine a party under R.14 is distinct from the right of a party to call the opposite party as a witness. The latter is not a right but a procedural option, and such a summons cannot be issued as a matter of course by a party to the suit (!) (!) (!) .

5. Historical legal principles and prior judicial opinions emphasize that summoning the opposite party as a witness is not a right of the parties but a power exercised by the court, which should be used judiciously and not as a tool for harassment or improper practice (!) (!) .

6. Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code, particularly the 1976 amendments, clarified the scope of the court's power, enlarging it to include summoning parties for examination but not conferring a right on parties to compel the opposite party's examination (!) (!) .

7. The court's discretion is paramount in such matters, and in the case at hand, the court was justified in refusing to summon the defendants as witnesses, as the plaintiffs did not establish a necessary or justified reason for such summons (!) (!) .

8. The procedural rules and amendments, including local amendments, have been interpreted to confirm that the court, rather than the parties, holds the authority to summon witnesses, including the opposite party, based on necessity and judicial discretion (!) (!) .

9. The decision confirms that the court's refusal to summon the defendants as witnesses was within its jurisdiction and proper exercise of discretion, and thus no jurisdictional error or irregularity was found in the lower court's order (!) .

10. Overall, the legal framework emphasizes the court’s role in managing witness examination and clarifies that parties do not possess an inherent right to summon their opponents as witnesses without court approval or necessity (!) (!) .