JUDGMENT :- 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 9.6.2011 made in I.A. No.4136 of 2011 in O.S. No.2945 of 1999. 2. The Plaintiff in the aforesaid Suit is the Petitioner herein and the Defendants thereon are the Respondents. 3. The Petitioner has laid the said Suit against the Respondents for declaration that the Petitioner is the real owner of the suit lands and for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from alienating the suit property. In the said Suit, the Petitioner has taken out an Application in I.A. No.4136 of 2011 to examine the witnesses mentioned in the Petitioner by issuing subpoena. The said Application came to be dismissed by the Court below and the present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the said order. 4. The reasons that have been assigned by the Court below for rejecting the claim of the Petitioner, are summarized hereunder. (i) The Petitioner already filed an Application in I.A. No.10519 of 2009 for re-opening the case and summon the witnesses under Order 18, Rule 17, C.P.C. The said Application came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by an order dated 20.07.2009. Against the said order, the Petitioner preferred a Civil Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P. No.2500 of 2009 and the same was dismissed on 5.1.2010. Now, the present Application has been filed to summon some more witnesses. Hence, the Court below has opined that the present Application is not maintainable. (ii) The examination of the witnesses on the side of the Petitioner was already over and on the side of Defendants, D.W.1 was examined and when the matter was posted for cross-examination of D.W.1, the present Application has been filed. (iii) The Petitioner already filed Application in I.A. Nos.12907 to 12910 of 1999 to issue subpoena to the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Ambattur and Alandur and the Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai to produce some records pertaining to the suit property and same has been produced. Since the records from the Urban Land Authority have already been produced, the Application in I.A. No.10519 of 2009 filed to examine the witnesses came to be dismissed and the same was confirmed in the Civil Revision Petition, and hence, a similar application cannot be entertained. Since the records from the Urban Land Authority have already been produced, the Application in I.A. No.10519 of 2009 filed to examine the witnesses came to be dismissed and the same was confirmed in the Civil Revision Petition, and hence, a similar application cannot be entertained. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Order 16, Rule 14, C.P.C. which provides power only to the Court to summon the witness stranger to the Suit on its own accord. The Petitioner cannot invoke the said provision to summon the witnesses. (iv) Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. provides for presenting a list of Witnesses proposed to be called by a party and obtaining summons to such persons on or before the day appointed by the Court, which must not be later than 15 days after the date on which issues are settled. But, however, no such Application has been preferred by the Petitioner under the said provision. (v) This Court already in C.R.P. Nos.3828 & 3829 of 2007, in its order dated 23.7.2008, directed the Trial Court to dispose of the Suit within two months. Even after the said order, the Suit was not disposed of and the matter is being dragged on one foot or the other. Thus, set out those grounds, the Court below dismissed the Application preferred by the Petitioner. I am in entire agreement with the said findings rendered by the Court below. When this Court directed the Suit to be disposed of within two months from 23.7.2008, the date on which this Court has passed the order, the matter is being dragged on, one foot or the other, for the past three years. 5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 9.6.2011 made in I.A. No.4136 of 2011 in O.S. No.2945 of 1999. 6. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.