IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4174 OF 2009 Between: P. Pradeep Kumar and others .....PETITIONERS AND N. Rama Devi ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4174 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 24.07.2009, in I.A.No.440 of 2009 in O.S.No.5954 of 2007, on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) to summon Smt. B. Swaroopa, wife of B. Narasimha of Hyderabad, as a Court witness, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that examination of B. Swaroopa in the suit is necessary, because the specific case of the petitioners is that the respondent herein obtained lease of the suit schedule property from the said B. Swaroopa and therefore, she has to be summoned as Court witness. 4. Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C. reads as follows: “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 above provision enables the Court to summon any person including a party to the suit to give evidence or to produce a document in his possession when it thinks necessary, but not on an application by either party to the suit. When either party to the suit is not examined as witness relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue, then the Court, on its own motion, can summon such person as a witness to give evidence or to produce any documents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of this Court in T. Narayana Reddy v. Patan Razak Khan[1]. No doubt, this decision says that the civil Court is conferred with power to examine any person including a party to the suit and not called as a witness by a party to the suit. This can be done at its own motion, which means and includes that jurisdiction can even be set in motion by any of the parties to the suit. 6. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by this Court, either party to the suit can file an application to summon a witness as a Court witness. There is no doubt about the law laid down by this Court. Even assuming for a moment that the parties to a suit can apply for summoning a witness as a Court witness under Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C., but, at the same time, the petitioners must show that for what reason the witness has to be summoned as a Court witness. Except stating that examination of B. Swaroopa is very much essential to adjudicate the dispute in the suit, there is no explanation given by the petitioners as to why she has to be summoned as a Court witness. Therefore, the impugned order is in accordance with law. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving open all the remedies available to the petitioners under law. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioners from summoning the said witness as a witness on their behalf. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 11, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4174 OF 2009 November 11, 2010 [1] 2009 (1) ALT 471