THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.343 of 2010 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10.02.2009 passed in I.A.No.151 of 2009 in O.S.No.42 of 2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby, the petition to the extent of summoning the proposed witnesses - Executive Director – S. Venkata Ramana Babu, and G. Samba Murthy, the then Foreman of the plaintiff company, was allowed. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants, in the suit. The case of the defendants is that the Model Chit Corporation Limited - plaintiff company was not in existence, and P.W.1 claims to be authorized by the company to file the suit. Therefore, the persons connected with original resolution of the board of the plaintiff company and the authorization letter issued by the then Foreman of the company are to be examined to prove the board resolution and authorization and hence I.A.No.151 of 2009 in O.S.No.42 of 2005 was filed by the defendants to summon the proposed witnesses. The said petition was allowed in part, summoning the persons associated with the documents to be proved to answer the crucial question that has been raised in the suit. Challenging the same present revision is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that when the plaintiff company does not discharge its burden, summoning the persons connected with the company is premature when the defendants’ evidence has not been completed and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. Unless there is illegality or incorrect finding or reasoning given by the Court below, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the orders impugned. A witness can be summoned under Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C. 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. It means the Court may, when it thinks necessary, examine any person who is not even called as a witness by a party to the suit. On the above aspect, the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Bishwanath Rai vs. Sachhidanand Singh[1] wherein it was held as under: “Of course, the manner in which the appellant could obviously challenge this letter was by examining Swamiji himself as a witness. Instead of examining Swamiji as a witness, the appellant adopted the procedure of making an application to the High Court to summon him and exanmine him as a Court witness. That request was first put forward at a very early stage before examination of witnesses of parties had commenced. The Court rightly held that it was too early a stage for the Court to come to a finding whether the examination of Swamiji as a Court witness was necessary. Such an opinion could only be formed after evidence of parties was over. The appellant was, therefore, directed to move the application at the appropriate stage. Thereafter, evidence of both parties was recorded and the appellant did not examine Swamiji as his witness. He renewed the request for his examination as a court witness after closing his evidence. The Court, in our opinion, quite correctly took the view that it was open to the appellant as well as the respondent to examine Swamiji as his witness and, when both of them failed to produce him as a witness, there is no reason why the Court should summon him as its own witness. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued before us that the appellant had sufficient justification for not examining Swamiji, because the appellant had made an allegation that he was in collusion with Ram Chandra Sharma and further because the request of the appellant to examine Swamiji as a court witness was refused after the appellant had closed his evidence. Neither of the two reasons is adequate to explain the omission on the part of the appellant. A mere suggestion made as a guess-work that there was collusion between Swamiji and Ram Chandra Sharma can provide no justification, for not examining him when no evidence at all had been tendered to prove that Swamiji and Ram Chandra Sharma were in anyway great friends or that Ram Chandra Sharma had some influence on Swamiji as a result of which he could induce him to collude and write this letter at that early stage in January, 1969 in advance of the election. In fact, whatever evidence there is on the record points to a closer association between the appellant and Swamiji than any association between Ram Chandra Sharma and Swamiji. So far as the second ground for non- examination is concerned, it was the appellant's own fault that he did not examine Swamiji at the earlier stage before closing his evidence. In any case, he had the alternative that, when the Court refused to examine Swamiji as a court witness, he could have made a request to the Court to permit him to summon and examine Swamiji as his own witness; but no such request was made to the Court. In these circumstances, the fact that the appellant did not try to give the only possible evidence which he could to challenge the authenticity and genuineness of this letter justifies the conclusion that this letter was sent by Swamiji on 2nd January, 1969 to Ram Chandra Sharma as stated by the latter.” From a perusal of the above decision, it is clear that examination of a witness is necessary when both the parties failed to produce such witness and the Court could form such opinion only after evidence of the parties was over. He also relied on another decision of this Court in K. Kalinga Maharaju vs. Kosuru Kaikamma[2], wherein it is held thus: “A party who presents a petition under Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC, therefore, is required to convince the Court by assigning sufficient reasons seeking the assistance of the Court for summoning a person as a witness including a party to the suit. As long as the Court is not satisfied with the reasons assigned by such party which invokes this provision, the Court shall not act upon such a request.” From the above decision, it is clear that the Court has the power to summon any person as a witness if it is in the opinion that such examination is necessary. As regards the case on hand, the objection by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff for summoning the two witnesses mentioned above was that it was too premature because the defendants’ evidence was not completed. The question to be decided in the suit is whether P.W.1 was duly authorized by the plaintiff company to file the suit or not. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.151 of 2009 in O.S.No.42 of 2005, the defendants denied that P.W.1 was duly authorized by the plaintiff company. So to prove the proper authorization obtained, the person connected with the resolution of the board of the plaintiff company and the authorization letter has to necessarily be examined. Similarly, the letter of agreement said to have been issued by the then Foreman of the plaintiff company under Ex.B-20 is to be examined because unless the person connected with the said document is examined, it cannot be said that such a document is proved. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasoning assigned by the Court below while accepting the request of the defendants to the extent of summoning Executive Director – S. Venkata Ramana Babu, and the then Foreman of the plaintiff company – G. Sambamurthy, who are associated with passing of resolution of the board and authorization letter, and to prove Ex.B-20 – letter of agreement, does not call for interference. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) 09th February, 2010 GHN [1] AIR 1971 SC 1949 [2] 2000(2) ALT 409