Judgment :- (1) This is a revisional application against the Order No.26 dated January 14, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court at Port Blair, in Title Suit No.44 of 2007. (2) By the order impugned, the learned trial Judge rejects an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 16, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By filing such application the plaintiff seeks leave to examine the defendants of the suit as his" witnesses before his evidence in his suit. (3) The learned trial Judge, by the order impugned, rejects his prayer with costs. (4) The learned Judge finds, as finding of fact, that there is no necessity or compelling circumstances for examining the defendants as witnesses of the plaintiff. (5) A copy of the application filed by the plaintiff under Rule 21 of Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure is produced before this Court. The plaintiff in the said application states that the above suit is fixed for peremptory hearing and the plaintiff intends to examine the defendants of the suit as his witnesses before getting himself examined in support of his plaint case. The plaintiff alleges that each and every fact, as averred in the plaint of the suit, is to be proved by way of examination of the defendants as his witnesses. (6) According to Rule 21 of Order 16, as aforesaid, a party and a witness are not to be differentiated in the matter of giving evidence. It provides that one party to the suit can examine his opponent as his witness or require him to produce documents. (7) The device sometimes adopted by a party to the suit of unnecessarily forcing his opponent to give evidence as his witness is, always, condemned. (8) There is no compelling circumstance suggested in the application for examination of the defendants as the witnesses of the plaintiff. Such prayer cannot be made as a matter of course. (9) The learned Judge, in my opinion, rightly holds that the application of the plaintiff is an abuse of the process of the Court. (10) I, therefore, do not find that the learned Judge has committed any error of jurisdiction or illegality requiring interference by this Court in exercise of superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (11) The revisional application is, therefore, rejected. (10) I, therefore, do not find that the learned Judge has committed any error of jurisdiction or illegality requiring interference by this Court in exercise of superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (11) The revisional application is, therefore, rejected. I may, however, make no order as to costs. S. K. G.