THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.134 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 02.12.2009 made in I.A.No.806 of 2009 in O.S.No.1509 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, refusing to issue summons to the Assistant Engineer, Roads and buildings, Town Works Section, Visakhapatnam. 2. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.1509 of 2007 for eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule property. When the matter came up for arguments, the petitioner herein filed the above said I.A. under Order XVI Rule 14 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking to issue summons to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Town Works Section, Visakhapatnam, and to examine him as a Court witness. The trial Court on consideration of the rival contentions dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that neither of the parties to the suit is entitled to file a petition under Order XVI Rule 14 and Order X Rule 2 read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking to issue summons to a particular person to examine him as a Court witness. Hence, this civil revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Order XVI Rule 14 CPC and Order X Rule 2 read with Section 165 of the Act comes into operation whenever the party files an application for issuance of summons to third party and therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the said I.A. 4. Order XVI Rule 14 CPC read as under: “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.” 5. The above provision clearly postulates that the Court at any time thinks it necessary to examine any person stranger to the suit, cause such person to be summoned as a witness to give evidence or to produce any document in his possession. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is unsustainable. The trial Court has rightly observed that neither of the parties to the suit is entitled to file such a petition seeking to issue summons to a particular person to examine him as a Court witness. However, the petitioner can as well put forth all his contentions before the Court below during the course of arguments. Therefore, I see no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 05.02.2010 sj