Judgment : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 02.03.2011, by which the application Exh. 190 filed by the petitioner for being allowed to examine a witness came to be rejected. The petition also takes exception the order dated 29.03.2011 by which the review application filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 02.03.2011 came to be rejected. The petitioner is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 123/2005 which has been filed by the respondent herein for eviction and possession against the petitioner, who is a tenant in the suit property. The ground for eviction and possession is that the respondent bonafide requires the same. 3. 3. In the said suit, the petitioner filed his written statement on 27.01.2006. The issues thereafter have been framed and the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff and some of the witnesses of the petitioner/defendant is also over. The petitioner filed an application, Exh. 190 for issuing witness summons to the Stamp Vendor namely, Shri M.C. Sahastrabuddhe from whom the petitioner and the respondent no.1 had purchased the stamp paper on which the agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 i.e. exhibit 145. In the said application the reason why the petitioner wanted to examine the said witness was also mentioned. 4. The said application was opposed by the respondent no.1 herein, the Trial Court as mentioned herein above by the impugned order dated 02.03.2011 rejected the said application on the ground that the name of the said witness was not disclosed as also the petitioner had not filed the list of witnesses, which he wanted to examine, which was mandated by order XVI of Civil Procedure Code. The Trial Court also recorded that the petitioner/defendant has also examined his witnesses and it is only after completion of the evidence of the plaintiff and part evidence of the defendant that the said application is being filed. Aggrieved by the rejection of the said application the petitioner filed review application which came to be rejected by the second impugned order dated 23.00.2011. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In so far as order XVI of the C.P.C. is concerned, the Bombay Amendment reads as follows: [1. Aggrieved by the rejection of the said application the petitioner filed review application which came to be rejected by the second impugned order dated 23.00.2011. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In so far as order XVI of the C.P.C. is concerned, the Bombay Amendment reads as follows: [1. At any time after the suit is instituted, parties may obtain, on application to the Court or to such officer as it appoints in this behalf, summons to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents: Provided that in the Bombay City Civil Court, on an application by a Pleader, the Registrar of that Court may, in accordance with the rules of that Court, issue summonses in advance with the date of hearing left blank to be filled in by the pleader before serving the same on the witnesses. In terms of clause (3) of order XVI, it is within the discretion of the Court 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 commission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. Hence, in terms of Rule 3 the Court is sufficiently possessed with the power to summon a witness if the same is necessary for adjudication of the issue before the Court. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed application Exh. 190, for summoning the witness Shri M.C. Sahastrabuddhe, who is a Stamp Vendor. The Trial Court has rejected the said application relying upon a Rule in Order XVI which does not appear in the Bombay Amendment. In so far as the Bombay Amendment is concerned, it permits the parties at any time after the suit is instituted to file an application to summon persons whose attendance is required to give evidence or to produce documents. Hence, in view of the said Bombay Amendment, the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the said application. 7. In my view, if for adjudicating the real controversy between the parties, a witness is required to be summoned the same would have to be permitted. In the instant case the petitioner has mentioned the reason as to why Shri Sahastrabuddhe the Stamp Vendor was required to be examined. 8. 7. In my view, if for adjudicating the real controversy between the parties, a witness is required to be summoned the same would have to be permitted. In the instant case the petitioner has mentioned the reason as to why Shri Sahastrabuddhe the Stamp Vendor was required to be examined. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders dated 02.03.2011 and 29.03.2011 would have to be set aside and resultantly the application Exh. 190 is required to be allowed. The petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to summon Shri M.C. Sahastrabuddhe the Stamp Vendor for being examined as his witness. The Trial Court is directed to issue summons to the said witness so that he will remain present on the date fixed by the Trial Court. Shri Deshpande the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assures the Court that the examination-in-chief of M.C. Sahastrabuddhe would be commenced on the date fixed by the Trial Court and that his evidence would be completed at the highest within a week. In the facts and circumstances of the case hearing of the Regular Civil Suit is expedited and directed to be disposed of by 31.03.2012. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with parties to bear their respective costs.