IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5697 OF 2009 Between:- Gude Apparao and others …Petitioners A n d M.V.S.Visweswara Rao and others. …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5697 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 13-10-2009 in I.A.No.897 of 2009 in O.S.No.129 of 2001, on the file Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Order XVI Rule 7 seeking issuance of summons to examine defendants 1 to 3, as court witnesses, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs. They filed the suit against the respondents for permanent injunction in respect of plaint 'A' schedule property and also for declaration that the sale deed obtained by defendants 2 to 4 from the first respondent in respect of his share in plaint 'B' schedule is not binding on the plaintiffs. Recording of the evidence during the trial was completed and the matter is at the stage of arguments. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed a petition in I.A.No.897 of 2009 for reopening the evidence and another application I.A.No.898 of 2009 for summoning defendants 1 and 2 to examine as Court witnesses. The petitioners complain that defendants 1 to 3 are purposefully avoiding to come into the witness box and give evidence and they have to be necessarily cross-examined by the plaintiffs for adjudication of the dispute. 4. Order XVI Rule 7 CPC states that any person present in Court may be required by the Court to give evidence or to produce any document then and there in his possession or power. 5. It is not the case where defendants 1 to 3 were present in the Court and the Court required them to give evidence or produce document in their possession. The provisions of Order XVI Rule 7 are, therefore, not attracted to the present case. 6. Order XVI Rule 14 enables the Court on its motion, to cause a person to be summoned as a witness to give evidence, or to produce any document in his possession, where the court at any time thinks necessary to examine such person, including a party to the suit and not called as a witness by a party. The power of the Court to examine a witness under this rule is to be exercised suo motu and is discretionary. 7. In BISHWANATH V. SACHHIDANAND[1], the Apex Court held that where neither side had summoned the material witness to give evidence, the Court was fully justified in refusing the prayer of a party to the proceeding to call him as a Court witness after closure of evidence. In K.S.AGHA MIR AHMAD V. MUDASSIR SHAH[2], it was held that normally the appellate court do not interfere with the discretion of the trial court. As a general rule, it is for the parties to the suit to summon the witnesses necessary to prove their case. Power under this rule will not be exercised by the Court to help a party to tide over any difficulty resulting from omission to examine a particular person, including a party to the proceeding, as a witness. It is only where the Court thinks it necessary to examine any person, including a party to the suit, the Court may on its own motion cause such person to be summoned as a witness. The above provision enables the Court to exercise the power suo motu and does not contemplate filing of an application by a party to the proceeding for the said purpose. When the Court does not feel compelled to exercise the power under Order XVI Rule 14 and summon a party to the proceeding as a Court witness and exercised its discretion judiciously not to issue summons to such person, the same does not call for any interference by the Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, especially when the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 8. In the circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely no merits in the civil revision petition. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 8th December, 2009 Lrkm. [1] AIR 1971 SC 1949 [2] AIR 1844 Privy Council 100