ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order, dated 25-06-2008, made in I.A.No.444 of 2008 in O.S.No.4 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, wherein the application filed by the 2nd defendant under Order 16 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, to summon the 1st defendant in the said suit as a court witness, was allowed. The plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration of his right to the plaint schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The said suit has been contested by the 2nd defendant alone and the 1st defendant remained ex-parte. The 2nd defendant filed I.A.No.444 of 2008 in O.S.No.4 of 2002 with the following averments:- " This is a petition filed Under Order 16 Rule 14 r/w Section 151 CPC to summon the first defendant of the suit O.S.No.4 of 2002 as a court witness. The Second defendant filed his affidavit contending that the plaintiff has filed the above suit against him and the first defendant for declaration of plaintiff's right to the plaint schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. That the suit survey number belongs to Gudi Lakshmaiah and the said Gudi Lakshmaiah married to one Munemma through which Gudi Lakshmaiah did not got any children and later Gudi Lakshmaiah married another woman by name Desamma who is the second wife of Gudi Lakshmaiah and through the said Desamma, Gudi Lakshmaiah has got one son by name Venkatesy, who is the first defendant in the suit. After marriage, Desamma, Gudi Lakkshmaiah has executed a maintenance deed in favour of first wife of Gudi Lakshmaiah i.e., Munemma with limited rights of enjoyment of the properties and after death those properties shall revert back to the legal heirs of Gudi Lakshmaiah. After the death of Gudi Lakshmaiah, the properties of Gudi Lakshmaiah was succeeded by the first defendant. That the first defendant has executed an agreement of sale in his favour in respect of the suit survey number. After the death of Gudi Lakshmaiah, the properties of Gudi Lakshmaiah was succeeded by the first defendant. That the first defendant has executed an agreement of sale in his favour in respect of the suit survey number. As the first defendant failed to execute a regular registered sale deed in terms of the said agreement of sale, he has filed a suit against the 1st defendant for specific performance of contract vide O.S.No.24/2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Piler and the said suit was decreed. Even after passing of the decree the first defendant was failed to execute the sale deed in his favour and he filed O.E.P.No.9/2002 against the 1st defendant for execution of the registered sale deed through the process of law and the said O.E.P. No.9/2002 is pending. As he filed the O.S.No. 24/2001 against the first defendant and also O.E.P.No.9/2002, the 1st defendant may not support his case. Further first defendant is a crucial witness to speak of facts which will enable this court to adjudicate the dispute effectively, otherwise he will be put to irreparable loss and injury. A counter has been filed by the plaintiff in the said I.A., which is extracted below:- "On the other hand, the respondent filed counter not disputing the filing of the suit vide O.S.No.24/2001 on the file of this court by the petitioner and passing of the decree there under and filing of O.E.P.No.9/2002 against the first defendant. But the respondent contended in his counter that the second defendant examined his witnesses and thereafter delaying the trial of the suit. That the second defendant has not made any allegations against the first defendant either in his pleadings or in the evidence and without any basis purposefully the second defendant filed this application with a view to destruct the evidence of respondent. That the first defendant in this suit is under the control of second defendant and at their instance they can got examined as their own witnesses. That the first defendant in this suit is under the control of second defendant and at their instance they can got examined as their own witnesses. The petitioner has filed this application without basis to nullify the evidence and to fill up the blanks of the evidence of the petitioner and therefore the petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed." It is the case of the 2nd defendant that the said property originally belonged to Gudi Lakshmaiah and as he did not get any children through his first wife Munemma, he married another woman by name Desamma, as his second wife, and through her, he got a son by name Venkatesh, who is the 1st defendant in the suit. After marrying Desamme, Gudi Lakshmaiah had executed a maintenance deed in favour of his first wife Munemma with limited rights to enjoy the properties till her death and after her death, the properties shall revert back to the legal heirs of Gudi Lakshmaiah. Thus, after the death of Gudi Lakshmaiah, the 1st defendant succeeded to the said properties. The 1st defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of suit survey number and as the 1st defendant failed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant filed the suit O.S.No.24 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Piler, against the 1st defendant, for specific performance of agreement of sale, and the said suit was decreed. As the 1st defendant failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant filed O.E.P.No.9 of 2002 against the 1st defendant for execution of the registered Sale Deed through the process of law and the said O.E.P. is still pending. As the 2nd defendant filed the said suit and also O.E.P. against the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant may not support his case as he has no good terms with the 2nd defendant and, therefore, it is essential to summon the 1st defendant as a court witnesses to adjudicate the dispute effectively. As the 2nd defendant filed the said suit and also O.E.P. against the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant may not support his case as he has no good terms with the 2nd defendant and, therefore, it is essential to summon the 1st defendant as a court witnesses to adjudicate the dispute effectively. The said application has been resisted by the plaintiff denying all the allegations and further contending that the 1st defendant is under the control of the 2nd defendant and therefore, the 1st defendant can be examined as witness of the 2nd defendant and as such, the petition filed under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC to summon the 1st defendant, who is a party to the suit, as a court witness, cannot be accepted and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The court below, after considering the rival contentions and also relying on the judgment of this court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. SUSRU SEA FOODS, VISAKHAPATNAM1 allowed I.A.No.444 of 2008 in O.S.No.4 of 2002 on 25-06-2006, directing to issue summons to the 1st defendant. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff relying on a decision of this court in B.VENKAT RAM REDDY Vs. K.SRINIVAS AND OTHERS contended that on a petition filed under Order 16 Rule 1 (3) CPC, at the instance of the party to the suit, a person cannot be summoned as a court witness, especially when he is a party to the suit, and if the court feels that a witness or a party to the suit is essential then only, it can summon the witness. I have perused the aforesaid judgments. The facts in B.VENKAT RAM REDDY's case (2 supra) relates to the suit for recovery of money and the 1st defendant therein alone contested the suit and defendants 4 to 6 having filed written statement, remained ex-parte and the 1st defendant filed I.A. under Order 16 Rule 1 (3) CPC to summon defendants 4 to 6, which was dismissed, against which, the 1st defendant filed the Civil Revision Petition before this court, wherein it was held that the party, who intends to summon the witness, whether a party to the suit or not, has to specifically plead the context, in which, the witnesses are to be examined. In the said case, no specific plea was taken by the 1st defendant to examine other defendants showing the reasons for what purpose they are required to be examined. Therefore, this court held that the 1st defendant therein cannot compel an unwilling party to the suit to depose, nor can he be permitted to elicit any information except by stating clearly in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. and accordingly, this court declined to summon other defendants. As already stated, in the instant case, specific reasons have been shown in the affidavit filed by the 2nd defendant for summoning the 1st defendant as a court witness under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC. I deem it appropriate to extract relevant provisions of Order 16 CPC. Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC, which deals with summoning and attendance of witnesses, reads as hereunder:- List of witnesses and summons to witnesses:- (1) On or before such date as the Court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summons to such persons for their attendance in Court. (2) A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. (3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. Under order 16 Rule 1 (1) CPC, the parties to the suit, shall furnish the list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summons to such persons for their attendance in Court within the prescribed time. Under order 16 Rule 1 (2) CPC, while obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person or a witness, the purpose shall also be indicated. Under order 16 Rule 1 (2) CPC, while obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person or a witness, the purpose shall also be indicated. Under order 16 Rule 1 (3) CPC, the Court may permit any party to summon the witness other than those specified in the list of witnesses on showing sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the list. Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC reads as follows:- 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." A perusal of Order 16 Rule 14 CPC makes it clear that if 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. Thus, the above provision makes it clear that the court may examine the party to the suit and person, who is not party to the suit and who has not cited as witness by a party to the suit, subject to the satisfaction that examination of such person is necessary. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to summon the 1st defendant as a court witness or not? Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to summon the 1st defendant as a court witness or not? In the instant case, though the court below had not expressed its opinion, the fact remains that the application filed by the 2nd defendant explaining the reasons, insisting to examine the 1st defendant by summoning the 1st defendant as a court witness, is allowed. The learned Judge while dealing with the said contention stated that if the 1st defendant is desired to be summoned by the 2nd defendant, he can be examined as a witness of the 2nd defendant. In fact, it is stated that the 2nd defendant can call the 1st defendant as a witness of the 2nd defendant or he can call the 1st defendant as a court witness. Merely, because the order contains that the 2nd defendant can call the 1st defendant as his witness, it cannot be said that the 1st defendant is not a court witness and that the court has not satisfied to summon him as a court witness. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below thought it fit that examination of the 1st defendant is necessary and hence, relying on the judgment of this court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (1 supra), rightly allowed the application, and therefore, it cannot be said that the 1st defendant is not liable to be examined as a court witness. In fact, the scope of Order 16 Rule 14 CPC has been liberally dealt with in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (1 supra), which is extracted below: "........ In Awadh Kishore Singh and another v. Brij Bihari Singh and others, AIR 1993 Patna 122, it is observed. "No provision could be brought to our notice on behalf of any of the parties to show that a party is debarred from examining its adversary as a witness on his behalf. A plaintiff can examine any witness he so likes the witness may be a stranger, may be a man of his own party or party himself or may be a defendant or his man. A plaintiff can examine any witness he so likes the witness may be a stranger, may be a man of his own party or party himself or may be a defendant or his man. Therefore, if a plaintiff wants to examine a defendant as a witness on his behalf, he cannot be precluded from examining him on the ground that the said defendant has neither appeared in the suit nor upon appearance filed written statement nor prayer for filing written statement has been rejected..... " "......... This court in Kosuru Kalinga Maharaju v. Kosuru Kaikamma and others, 1999 (6) ALD 789 = 2000 (2) ALT 409 , while considering the scope of Order XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, observed: "A reading of Rule 14 of Order 16 would leave no doubt in the mind to say that "either party to the suit proceedings can summon a person including a party to the suit who is not called as a witness by a party to the suit, as a witness". 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 guardedly and not as a matter of routine......." "....... Order XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: "Court may of its own accord summon as witnesses strangers to suit. The emphasis is laid on the subjective satisfaction of the Court. However, this power is to be exercised by the Courts guardedly and not as a matter of routine......." "....... Order XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: "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." "......... That a plain reading of the said provision makes it abundantly clear that a Civil Court is conferred with jurisdiction and power to examine any person including a party to the suit and not called as a witness by a party to the suit. This can be done on its own motion, which means and includes that its jurisdiction can even be set in motion by any of the parties to the suit. The words "to examine any person, including a party to the suit" has been substituted for "to examine any person other than a party to the suit" by Act 104 of 1976, with effect from 1-2-1977. What was otherwise implicit is now made explicit that even a party to the suit and not called as a witness by a party to the suit can be called by the Court as a witness to give evidence, or to produce any document in his possession....." I am of the opinion that this court already held in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (1 supra) that as per Order 16 Rule 14 CPC, the Civil Court is conferred with jurisdiction and empowered to examine any person including a party to the suit, and not called as a witness by a party to the suit earlier, and this can be done on its own motion. In the instant case, I am of the opinion that the court below, after considering the rival contentions, thought it fit and necessary to examine the 1st defendant as a court witness and accordingly, allowed the said application. Therefore, the order under challenge does not suffer from any error, much less, jurisdictional error, requiring interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any merits in the civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.