Judgment :- (1) THESE matters are coming up for admission. (2) SRI K. Sita Ram having lodged caveat on behalf of the respondent entered appearance in CRP No. 3207 of 2009. (3) THE revision petitioner filed the Civil revision Petition No. 3207 of 2009 i. e. , defendant in the suit, being aggrieved by an order dated 15. 4. 2004 made in IA No. 192 of 2009 in OS 71 of 2004, on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Adoni. (4) THE said application was filed under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short refer to as 'code') for the purpose of convenience, to reopen the matter. The petitioner filed another application to summon T. G. Sainath as Court witness. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni after referring to the respective stands taken by the parties in the light of the dismissal of the application IA No. 193 of 2009 i. e. , summoning of T. G. Sainath, dismissed the application in IA No. 192 of 2009 also. (5) LIKEWISE, the CRP No. 3175 of 2009 is preferred by the selfsame petitioner/ defendant, being aggrieved by an order made in IA No. 193 of 2009 in OS No. 71 of 2004, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, the said application was filed by the revision petitioner. Under Order XVI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code for issuing summons to the witness to give evidence as shown in the schedule, wherein the description of the witness had been furnished as T. G. Sainath, D. No. 20/66-A, Opp: chinmaya Vidyalaya, behind State Bank of India, Adoni. (6) THE learned Senior Civil Judge, adoni after recording reasons and also referring to certain questions which were put to PW1 as well and the decision reported in T. Narayana Reddy v. Patan Razak khan and another, 2009 (1) ALD 839 = 2009 (1) ALT 471 , ultimately came to the conclusion that this is not a fit matter where the said witness is to be summoned and accordingly dismissed the said application. (7) AS already aforesaid, aggrieved by the said orders, these civil revision petitions had been preferred under Article 227 of the constitution of India. (8) SRI. (7) AS already aforesaid, aggrieved by the said orders, these civil revision petitions had been preferred under Article 227 of the constitution of India. (8) SRI. M. Venkateswer Rao, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner in both the civil revision petitions had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties and also the evidence of PW1 as well and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances well explained in the respective affidavits filed in support of these applications, for the purpose of clarifying the questions in controversy, the examination of said t. G. Sainath would be highly essential and hence the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni had not exercised the discretion properly and without appreciating the reasons, which had been well explained, in proper perspective, ultimately dismissed both the applications and hence the civil revision petitions are to be allowed so as to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to see that the said T. G. Sainath is examined as a Court witness for proper adjudication of the questions in controversy. The Counsel also relied on certain decisions. (9) PER contra Sri K. Sita Ram would maintain that in the light of the stand taken in the respective counters and also in the light of the reasons recorded by learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, since the discretion had been exercised properly, these are not fit matters to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. The learned Counsel also would maintain that even otherwise no purpose would be served and it would be a futile exercise. The learned Counsel in all fairness would maintain that it may be that such application even at the instance of a party to summon a witness to be examined as a court witness, can be maintained depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular given case. But, however, this is not such a case and even if the said witness to be examined since this would not in any way seriously alter the situation, especially in the light of the convincing and elaborate reasons recorded by learned senior Civil Judge, these matters are to be dismissed. The Counsel also relied on decisions to substantiate his submissions. (10) HEARD the Counsel. Perused the orders under challenge in these civil revision petitions. (11) AS already aforesaid the revision petitioner in these civil revision petitions filed IA Nos. The Counsel also relied on decisions to substantiate his submissions. (10) HEARD the Counsel. Perused the orders under challenge in these civil revision petitions. (11) AS already aforesaid the revision petitioner in these civil revision petitions filed IA Nos. 192 and 193 of 2009 praying for re-opening of the matter and for the purpose of summoning T. G Sainath as court witness. After recording reasons, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved by the same, these civil revision petitions had been preferred. (12) THE respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of certain amount. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the entire transaction was between the petitioner and the partner of the plaintiff firm which was run by one T. G. Sainath who is none other that the father of PW1. Earlier on 28. 1. 2002, the said T. G. Sainath issued a legal notice on behalf of the plaintiff-firm, calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount for which he got issued a reply notice calling upon the said Sainath to furnish a copy of Invoice No. 9061277369 dated 22. 1. 2001 to Colgate Palmolive India Limited, which belongs to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner is entitled to receive the amounts under credit note. Thereupon, the said sainath gave a reply on 15. 2. 2002 stating that the plaintiff firm is a different firm from that of Maruthi Agencies. (13) IT is also stated that the said T. G. Sainath had done entire business both in maruthi Agencies and Pavan Finance as a managing Partner at the same time. Believing the words of the said Sainath, the petitioner transferred entire stock under Exs. Bl to b4. In the light of the evasive stand taken, it may be essential to summon this witness sainath as Court witness. (14) IN the counter, the said allegations had been denied specific stand had been taken that the petitioner had admitted the liability and in the light of the same, he had let in evidence first, subsequently the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and the evidence was closed. When the matter was coming up for arguments, at that belated stage, this application had been thought of. The cross-examination of PW1, and the nature of cross-examination also had been explained in the counters. (15) THE learned Senior Civil Judge, adoni, recorded reasons in elaboration in IA no. When the matter was coming up for arguments, at that belated stage, this application had been thought of. The cross-examination of PW1, and the nature of cross-examination also had been explained in the counters. (15) THE learned Senior Civil Judge, adoni, recorded reasons in elaboration in IA no. 193 of 2009 in OS No. 71 of 2004 aforesaid and in the light of those reasons the other application IA No. 192 of 2009 was also dismissed, wherein the relief prayed for to reopen the suit. It is not in serious controversy between the parties that the evidence was closed and the matter was coming up for arguments. This matter is of the year 2004. The learned Senior Civil judge, Adoni also recorded that the necessary questions already were put to pw1 and hence no purpose would be served by summoning the said Sainath. (16) ORDER XVI Rule 14 of the Code deals with : "court may of its own accord summon as witness 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, if 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. " (17) THE Counsel for petitioner strongly relied on a decision reported in T. Narayana reddy v. Patan Razak Khan and another (supra), wherein by following the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited, calcutta and others v. M/s. Susru Sea foods Rep. by its Managing Partner, 2005 (1) ALD 464 = 2005 (1) ALT 297 , the learned Judge held : "it is clear from Order 16 Rule 14, 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. " The learned Judge also observed that as per the said provision, 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. (18) IN P. Subrahmanyam Chetty v. Katari Ellappa Reddy, 1998 (1) ALT 279, it was held that the application to summon and examine a person as Court witness may be considered as passing on the information and the Court may examine the issue and exercise its discretion. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the apex Court in Bishwanath Rai v. Sachhidanand Singh, AIR 1971 SC 1949 , wherein the Apex Court observed at para 6: "of course, the manner in which the appellant could obviously challenge this letter was by examining Swamiji himself as a witness. 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 witness. 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 would too early a stage for the Court to come to a finding whether the examination of Swamiji as a Court witness was necessary. Such an opinion could only be formed after evidence of parties was over. The appellant was, 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 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 Swamiji as his witness and, when both of them failed to produce him as a witness, there is no reason why the Court should summon him as its own witness. The Court, in our opinion, quite correctly took the view that it was open to the appellant as well as the respondent to examine Swamiji as his witness and, when both of them failed to produce him as a witness, there is no reason why the Court should summon him as its own witness. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued before us that the appellant had sufficient justification for not examining swamiji, because the appellant had made an allegation that he was in collusion with Ram chandra Sharma and further because the request of the appellant to examine Swamiji as a Court witness was refused after the appellant had closed his evidence. Neither of the two reasons is adequate to explain the omission on the part of the appellant. A mere suggestion made as a guess work that there was collusion between Swamiji and ram Chandra Sharma can provide no justification, for not examining him when no evidence at all had been tendered to prove that Swamiji and Ram Chandra Sharma were in anyway great friends or that Ram chandra Sharma had some influence on swamiji as a result of which he could induce him to collude and write this letter at that early stage in January, 1969 in advance of the election, In fact, whatever evidence there is on the record points to a closer association between the appellant and swamiji than any closer association between ram Chandra Sharma and Swamiji. So far as the second ground for non-examination is concerned, it was the appellant's own fault that he did not examine Swamiji at the earlier stage before closing his evidence. In any case, he had the alternative that, when the court refused to examine Swamiji as a Court witness, he could have made a request to the Court to permit him to summon and examine Swamiji as his own witness; but no such request was made to the Court. In these circumstances, the fact that the appellant did not try to give the only possible evidence which he could to challenge the authenticity and genuineness of this letter justifies the conclusion that this letter was sent by swamiji on 2nd January, 1969 to Ram chandra Sharma as stated by the latter. " (19) UNDER Order XVI Rule 14 of the code it is no doubt true that the Court is expected to exercise its discretion judiciously. " (19) UNDER Order XVI Rule 14 of the code it is no doubt true that the Court is expected to exercise its discretion judiciously. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni having recorded convincing reasons, ultimately came to the conclusion that this would be a futile exercise and hence declined to summon the said Sainath to be examined as a Court witness. Such discretion exercised by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni after recording convincing reasons normally not to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (20) HENCE this Court is satisfied that both civil revision petitions being devoid of merit they are liable to be dismissed. (21) ACCORDINGLY, the civil revision petitions shall stand dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.