Judgment :- By an order dated 23.11.2006, this Revision was already disposed of, by allowing the same on merit, even though there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents. 2. The respondents had filed a petition for permission to reopen the case and there was delay in filing the petition and this Court already condoned the delay. 3. Today, learned counsel for the respondents, who filed the petition for the purpose of setting aside the order dated 23.11.2006, was allowed to argue the revision on merit. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondents. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when it remains a fact that the plaintiff had already filed an application in I.A.No.442 of 2005 in O.S.No.19 of 2003 before the lower Court for the same relief i.e., for reopening and reexamining P.W.1 for marking certain documents, which are stated to be filed along with the plaint, and the same was dismissed on 25.10.2006, I do not think that another application can be filed for the very same relief. However, the learned trial Judge having correctly decided to dismiss the application, permitted P.W.1 to be reexamined for the purpose of producing documents in her possession, by invoking the suo motu power under Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC. That portion of the order passed by the learned trial Judge is in question by the defendants in this revision. 6. Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC gives suo motu power to the Civil Court to summon any stranger to the suit as a witness. It reads as follows: Order 16 Rule 14 : 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." 7. The said rule enables a Civil Court to summon a stranger to the suit to give evidence for the purpose of marking certain documents. It is very clear that suo motu power applies only in respect of persons who were not earlier called as witnesses. On the other hand, in the present case, admittedly, the plaintiff was examined as a witness, namely, P.W.1. Merely because the plaintiff failed to mark some of the documents, that cannot be a ground for enabling the Civil Court to exercise its suo motu power under Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC, since the said clause clearly states that it applies only to persons who were not called as witnesses earlier. 8. However, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that inasmuch as the plaintiff has already filed documents along with the suit in fairness, he may be permitted to produce the documents and mark the same, by recalling her as a witness. 9. As I have stated earlier, when once the plaintiff already filed an application and that was dismissed and that order had become final, I do not think that any further application can be filed on the same cause of action. This is not a case where Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC can be invoked by the Court. 10. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents in this regard is unsustainable. In view of the same, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and the order of the trial Court is set aside. Learned trial Judge is directed to complete the trial in O.S.No.19 of 2003 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report the same to this Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.20264 of 2005 is closed.