Judgment : Plaintiff in O.S.No.296 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif, Court, Munsif is the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions. Plaintiff filed a suit for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants and their men from interfering with his possession. According to him, property belonged to one Chidambaram Chettiar, son of Sankaran Chettiar. Plaintiff became a tenant under Chidambaram Chettiar and he is a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 25 of 1955. After the death of plaintiffs father, plaintiff and his mother became the tenants and they also continue to pay rent to legal heirs of Chidambaram Chettiar who is first defendant in this case. It is the further case of plaintiff that at the instance of second defendant, first defendant began to interfere with the possession of plaintiff which necessitated filing of this suit. 2. In the written statement filed by second defendant, he denied the right of plaintiff to get decree of injunction. According to him, plaintiff was never personally cultivating the land and he has sub-let the property to one Singaravelu and Koothan Chettiar. Various other contentions are also taken by second defendant to show that there has been other transactions regarding schedule property which will prove that plaintiff is not in possession. .3. After issues are suggested, oral evidence of both sides were also closed by P.Ws.1 and 2 and D.Ws.1 and 2. Thereafter, when the matter came for arguments, petitioner moved an application in I.A.Nos.328 and 329 of 1999 to reopen the case to adduce further evidence and also requested the court to summon one Singaravelu to be examined by court as court witnesses. In the affidavit in support of the application, petitioner said that he is in possession of the property and since there is contention in the written statement that plaintiff is colluding with one Singaravelu he cannot cite him as his witnesses. According to petitioner he is not in collusion with Singaravelu and in fact it is defendant who is colluding with Singaravelu and for interest of justice, Singaravelu is to be examined in the case to prove the person in possession and he must be examined as court witness. 4. According to petitioner he is not in collusion with Singaravelu and in fact it is defendant who is colluding with Singaravelu and for interest of justice, Singaravelu is to be examined in the case to prove the person in possession and he must be examined as court witness. 4. A detailed counter statement was filed by second respondent and after hearing both sides, lower court rejected the application on the ground that under O.16, Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure, Court is not expected to take its own initiative to examine a witness unless special circumstances are made out. Lower court further held that petitioner can very well examine Singaravelu if he chose, but court is not going to exercise its discretion to examine as its witness. The same is challenged in these revision petitions. 5. Notice of motion was ordered and learned counsel for respondent was also heard. .6. Even though application is filed under O.16, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, it is admitted that when a witness is to be examined as Court witness, the provisions of O.16, Rule 14 alone will apply. Relevant rule reads thus: .“Order 16, Rule 14 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.” 7. Thescope of O.16, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure came for consideration before Andhra Pradesh High Court in the decision reported in P.S.Chetty v. K.E.Reddy P.S.Chetty v. K.E.Reddy P.S.Chetty v. K.E.Reddy (1988)I A.L.T. 279. After extracting the rule, learned Judge held thus, “Order 16, Rule 14, C.P.C. provides that the court may of its own initiative or suo motu cause any person to be examined as a witness though either of the parties did not choose to take steps for summoning such person as a witness. After extracting the rule, learned Judge held thus, “Order 16, Rule 14, C.P.C. provides that the court may of its own initiative or suo motu cause any person to be examined as a witness though either of the parties did not choose to take steps for summoning such person as a witness. This power obviously intended in the interests of justice is aimed at clarifying certain situations and remove ambiguities and fill up lacuna and thereby further justice. The parties may refrain from summoning a crucial witness in the event of their apprehension of full fledged support and in such a situation the court may summon such person to give evidence to arrive at the correct factual picture and this witness is called a ‘court witness’. O.16, Rule 14 visualises the initiative by the court only to examine any person and it is for the court to consider of its own accord the necessity of invoking power under this rule without propulsion or application by the parties. The exercise of this power is in the nature of “self-starter” without extraneous pressure or pull. The court below while declining to invoke the power appears to have been swayed by consideration that the court is precluded from doing so at the instance of either party. It is true that the court is not obligated to invoke the power at the instance of the parties and the parties have no right to move an application under this rule. But however, either of the parties can bring to the notice of the court the necessity for examining any person as court witness. On such application, the court may scan the totality of facts and circumstances apart from the situations projected by the parties and arrive at an independent conclusion as to the necessity of a court witness. The parties are not totally barred from bringing to the notice of the court by application or otherwise and the court is not bound to take action on the averments of or allegation contained in the application and it is the sole discretion of the court. The parties are not totally barred from bringing to the notice of the court by application or otherwise and the court is not bound to take action on the averments of or allegation contained in the application and it is the sole discretion of the court. The application by the parties may be considered as passing on the information so that the court may examine the issue in depth on the facts and circumstances set out in the application and other aspects.” [Italics supplied] From the above decision it is clear that if circumstance exist after scanning entire evidence, if court feels summons have to be issued to a witness it has got power though application is filed by one of the parties to the suit. The application is considered as reminder to the court. .8. In R.M.Seshadri v. G.V.Pai R.M.Seshadri v. G.V.Pai R.M.Seshadri v. G.V.Pai A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 692 in Para. 16 of the Judgment, their Lordships expressed their views on the subject. The question arose in an election petition, .“The power of a Civil Court to summon court witnesses is contained in O.16, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Now the Representation of the People Act enjoins that all the powers under the Code can been exercised and all the procedure as far as may be applicable to the trial of civil suit may be followed in the trial or election petitions. It would appear therefore that in the absence of any prohibition contained in the law, the court has the power to summon a court witness if it thinks that the ends of justice require or that the case before it needs that kind of evidence.” .9. In Bishwanath v. Sachidanand A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 9149 which is also a case under Representation of the People, Act, a similar ground was urged i.e., collusion and therefore, witness will have to be examined as court witness. In para. 6 of the Judgment, it is held thus, .“…Instead of examining Swamiji as a witness, the appellant adopted the procedure of making an application to the High Court to summon him and examine him as a court witnesses. That request was first put forward at a very early stage before examination of witnesses of parties had commenced. In para. 6 of the Judgment, it is held thus, .“…Instead of examining Swamiji as a witness, the appellant adopted the procedure of making an application to the High Court to summon him and examine him as a court witnesses. 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 Swamji as a court witness was necessary. Such an opinion could only be formed after evidence of parties was over. The appellant 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 Swamji as his witness and, when both of them failed to produce him as witness, there is no reason why the court should summon him as its own witness….” [Italics supplied] 10. On the basis of above decisions I do not think that any ground is made out in this revision for interference. Merely because there is allegation of collusion which is also not proved in this case, that by itself may not be a ground to hold that the court has to issue summons to witness and examine him as a court witness. Lower court also found that there is a no collusion and it did not want to take up responsibility of examining the witness whom both parties did not want to summon them as their witness. The approach by lower court is legal and based on all settled legal principles. Lower court also said that if the petitioner wanted to examine Singaravelu as his witness, he could have taken steps. When that right is also given to the petitioner, insistence that he should be summoned only as court witness was rightly rejected by court below. 11. I am aware of the decision Rama Gounder v. Ramu (1984)97 L.W. 612 wherein their Lordships invoked power under O.16, Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure. When that right is also given to the petitioner, insistence that he should be summoned only as court witness was rightly rejected by court below. 11. I am aware of the decision Rama Gounder v. Ramu (1984)97 L.W. 612 wherein their Lordships invoked power under O.16, Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure. In that case learned Judge held that evidence of attestor of Negotiable Instrument was absolutely necessary and to come to a correct conclusion in that case, court itself wanted that witness to be examined. Hence the said decision may not have any application to the facts of this case. 12. In the result, the revision petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.15070 of 1999 is also dismissed.