HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2720 AND 2812 OF 2011 DATED 22nd DECEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Tadimeti Venkata Ramana …Petitioner in both CRPs And The State of AP, rep. by the Collector, WG District, Eluru, PJCJC, WG District and ors. ….Respondents in both CRPs. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2720 AND 2812 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of by this common order in as much as the parties thereto and the issue involved therein are one and the same. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed the suit in O.S.No. 113 of 2000 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapuram, seeking award of Rs.50,000/- towards damages for the loss caused to his crops in the plaint schedule properties; for mandatory injunction directing the respondents/defendants to maintain the Vemuladeevi project in a proper way to see that the water supply be made properly by maintaining water level as required and water sources be utilized properly to the agricultural paddy cultivation by preventing unauthorized prawn cultivators from the water sources of the Vemuladeevi Channel etc.,. After closure of evidence, the suit was posted for arguments. At this juncture, the petitioner/plaintiff filed two applications, namely, I.A.No. 461of 2011under Section 151 CPC to reopen the suit, and I.A. No. 462 of 2011 under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC to summon 10th respondent herein/10th defendant in the suit as a Court witness. The respondents/defendants opposed the said two applications by filing counter affidavits. The trial Court upon due consideration of the material on record, and following the decision of this Court in Shaik Abdul Rasool Vs.Lakshmi Reddy (2011(3) ALT 627) dismissed the said two applications under the common order under revision observing that the provision under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC could not be taken aid of by a party to the suit to summon a particular witness as a Court witness and an independent application for that very purpose did not lie and thus the petitioner/plaintiff could not insist the Court to summon the 10th respondent/defendant as a Court witness when the Court did not feel it necessary on its own accord. Hence, the present CPRs by the plaintiff. Heard. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that the 10th respondent/defendant is independently contesting the suit proceedings and hence his examination is very much necessary on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff in as much as he is the person responsible for maintaining the water sources. He submitted that on behalf of the respondents/defendants 1 to 9, 11 and 12, only the 8th defendant was examined and that the 10th respondent/defendant is intentionally avoiding the cross-examination by the petitioner/plaintiff and hence it is necessary to reopen the suit and summon the 10th respondent/defendant as a Court witness. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Kosuru Kalinga Maharaju Vs. Kosuru Kaikamma (2000-ALT-2-409), Veesam Mohan Reddy Vs. Rebba Pedda Gaiah (2008- ALT-2-329) and Shaik Abdul Rasool Vs. Lakshmi Reddy (2011-ALD-3-138) the learned Counsel submitted that the power under Order XVI Rule 14 CPC can be exercised even on an application made by a party to the proceedings since the application made thereon can be taken as an information to the Court. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned petitions were filed belatedly. He submitted that the 8th respondent/defendant was examined as DW.1 and the revision petitioner cross- examined DW.1 at length on all the aspects including the aspects alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the impugned petitions and as such there is no need and necessity to examine the 10th respondent/defendant as a court witness. He argued that the Court below never held that the examination of the 10th defendant as a Court witness is necessary and that his evidence would be helpful in deciding the subject matter of the suit. The learned Counsel submitted that the Court below gave sufficient and cogent reasons in dismissing the impugned applications and hence there are no grounds to interfere with them in these revision petitions. Perused the case file. Perusal of the order under revision would reveal that evidence on both sides was closed by 27.4.2011 and the suit is now coming for arguments since 1.6.2011. During the trial, the revision petitioner examined his witnesses including himself and on behalf of the defendants 1 to 9, 11 and 12, only 8th defendant was examined and on behalf of the 10th defendant, none were examined. It is asserted that the 10th defendant is independently contesting the matter by filing separate written statement by engaging a separate Advocate. As stated supra, after completion of recording the evidence by 27.4.2011, the suit was posted for arguments on 1.6.2011. As such, it can be seen that the subject petitions were filed belatedly and the Court below considering that aspect, rightly rejected the same. Further, it is to be seen that Rule 14 of Order 16 CPC would leave no room for doubt that the power under the said provision is to be exercised by a Court on its own accord and not at the instance of a party to the suit. Legislature has felt the need for a direct provision enabling the Court to summon a party for giving evidence as a witness to help curbing the malpractice of a party not appearing as a witness and forcing the other party to call him as a witness, and adjudicate the issues properly. What is laid down in the above provision is that if the Court is satisfied about such a necessity to cause any person to be examined as a witness, Court can summon such person as a witness. The emphasis is laid on the subjective satisfaction of the Court. However, this power is to be exercised by the Courts with due care and caution and not as a matter of routine. A learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Shaik Abdul Rasool Vs. G.Lakshmi Reddy, while referring the decisions of this Court in P.S.Chetty Vs.K.E. Reddy {1988 (1) ALT 279}, Kosuru Kalinga Maharaju Vs. Kosuru Kaikamma (supra), Veesam Mohan Reddy Vs.Rebba Pedda Agaiaah (supra), decision of the Privy Council in Agha Mir Ahmed Vs. Mudassir Shaw (AIR (31) 1944 PC 100) etc, held that the power under Rule 14 of Order 16 CPC is to be exercised by a Court on its own accord and not on the insistence by a party to the suit. Though a party to the suit could place any information, which may impress upon or convince the Court to exercise its powers under that provision, an independent application for that very purpose did not lie. The learned Judge further observed that if the parties are permitted to make independent application for summoning of an individual as a Court witness and are conferred with the right to insist the Court to accede their request, it might lead to several complications and that it could be used as a device to overcome their inability or failure to summon a witness and in certain cases to fill up the lacuna in the evidence which is already on record and perhaps that was never be the intention of the Parliament. The learned Judge suggested that if a party wants a particular individual be summoned or examined as witness, it must have recourse to Rules 1 and 1-A of Order 16 CPC. The trial Court, in fact, relying on the aforesaid decision, considered the request of the revision petitioner and rightly rejected the subject applications, which, in my considered opinion does not call for any interference by this Court in these revision petitions. For the foregoing reasons, the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner do not require any consideration, as they were rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases. Thus, I do not see any infirmity or irregularity in the order under revision. The Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed accordingly, There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------- -JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 22nd December, 2011 Msnro