THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4630 of 2010 ORDER: 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-à-vis the suit schedule property. Issues were framed and the trial of the suit commenced. 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. The petitioner filed I.A.No.648 of 2010 under Rules 6, 7 and 14 of Order 16 C.P.C. 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 C.P.C. 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. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though Rules 6 and 7 of Order 16 C.P.C. 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 Vs. Kosuru Kaikamma[1] and Veesam Mohan Reddy Vs. Rebba Pedda Agaiah[2], the learned counsel submits that the view taken by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. 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 C.P.C. 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. Order 16 C.P.C. 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 1-A 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 for the parties to the suit in the matter of examining the witnesses. Rule 6 of Order 16 C.P.C. 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 I.A. Rule 14 of Order 16 C.P.C., upon which emphasis is laid, reads as under: “1 4 . 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 at 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.” The heading of the Rule makes it amply clear that the power to summon strangers to a suit, as witness is to be exercised by the Court “on its own accord”. This idea is further strengthened by the phrases, “where the Court at any time thinks” and “the Court may, of its own motion”, occurring in the body of the provision. This is not the case where the aid of heading is taken to expand or restrict the meaning of the provision. In fact, both are at harmony, with each other. It is not uncommon that certain powers which are conferred upon the Court to take a particular step either by itself or at the instance of the parties to the proceedings. In such cases, the provisions itself would be clear; Section 152 C.P.C. can be taken as an example in this regard. It reads as under: “152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders: Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.” Exercise of power by the Court on its own accord as well as, at the instance of parties would also be possible where, the language of the provision is not so clear on this aspect. For instance, Rule 11 of Order 7 C.P.C., which provides for rejection of plaint, contains a phrase “the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases”. Though it is not mentioned as to whether it is the exclusive prerogative of the Court to exercise such power, or whether it can be exercised at the instance of the parties; in practice, it is both. Much, therefore, would depend upon the text of the provision. Rule 14 of Order 16 C.P.C., permits of no doubt, as to its purport. It confers exclusive power upon the Court. The power can be exercised only when the Court feels to do so, irrespective of the stance, which the parties may take on the matter. The dicta of the Supreme Court, in 1969 SC 269 becomes relevant. In the context of the present case, to be precise, the Court must feel that notwithstanding the fact that the parties have adduced evidence, there are certain aspects which become necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute. It may be for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality of the claim even where the parties did not bestow the attention, or in relation to the facts, that have a bearing upon its very jurisdiction. The reason is that if the cause before the Court is such that it lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate it, and the defendant in the suit or for that matter, the plaintiff did not bestow their attention to it, the very act of entertaining the suit; may become untenable. For this purpose, the court may choose to examine any person other than the witnesses that are already examined and enlighten itself, on some of the important aspects. This is only an example. The question of a party invoking such a power, which is to be exercised by the Court on its own accord, does not arise. It now, needs, to be seen as to how this provision, was either interpreted or understood, over the years. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt. 07.10.2010. kdl [1] 1999(6) ALD 789 [2] 2008(2) ALT 329