ORDER : M. Venkata Ramana, J. 1. C.R.P. No. 1337 of 2019 is directed against the orders in I.A. No. 304 of 2019 and C.R.P. No. 1348 of 2019 is directed against the orders in I.A. No. 305 of 2019 in O.S. No. 35 of 2016 dated 23.04.2019, on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Vizainagaram. 2. The 1st defendant in the suit is the petitioner herein in both the revision petitions. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 2nd defendant in the suit. 3. The 1st respondent instituted the suit for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 03.06.2014 (document No. 2383/2014) executed in the name of the petitioner and for other reliefs. The trial in the suit apparently has come to a close and by the time I.A. Nos. 304 & 305 of 2019 came to be filed, arguments were to be submitted on behalf of the parties. 4. The 1st respondent filed I.A. No. 304 of 2019 in the trial Court to reopen his side for the purpose of exhibiting the certified copy of deposition of 1st defendant, who deposed as PW. 1 in O.S. No. 485 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. I.A. No. 305 of 2019, as seen from the order under revision, was filed to summon the petitioner as a Court witness to depose in this case under Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C. Both these petitions were allowed by the common order dated 23.04.2019. 5. It is now contended for the petitioner in these revision petitions that reopening the 1st respondent side for the purpose sought by him is improper and further, when both these petitions were filed at the fag end of the case, i.e., at the stage of arguments, the learned Judge erred in allowing them. It is further contended that the purpose for which these petitions were filed was not mentioned in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions in the trial Court, and particularly when the petitioner is not willing to depose against himself, the trial Court was not justified in asking him to enter the box. It is further contended that the purpose for which these petitions were filed was not mentioned in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions in the trial Court, and particularly when the petitioner is not willing to depose against himself, the trial Court was not justified in asking him to enter the box. It is also contended that calling adversary as a witness by the opposite party is a bad practice which the Court shall not encourage, as is well laid down and as per authoritative pronouncements of Privy Council, as well as various High Courts. Thus mainly contending, it is requested on behalf of the petitioner to allow both these petitions and set aside the orders under revision. 6. The 1st respondent opposed these petitions mainly on the ground that in terms of Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C., the Court is entitled to summon any person including the party to the suit and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the petitioner did not choose to enter the witness box nor depose in the suit, he lost the opportunity to confront his deposition in O.S. No. 485 of 2012 referred to above on the file of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam where he has stated about the nature of the sale transactions concerned to the present suit and that the petitioner had categorically admitted his liability to pay the amounts concerned to O.S. No. 485 of 2012. Therefore, in these circumstances, when the petitioner purposely held himself back without deposing in the present suit, order of the trial Court to call him as a witness, exercising discretion under Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C., is just and appropriate. Thus contending on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is requested not to interfere with the orders under revision and to dismiss both these civil revision petitions. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the trial Court is justified in directing issuance of summons against the petitioner to depose in the suit as a Court witness, on behalf of his adversary viz., the 1st respondent, under Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C.? 8. 7. Now, the point for determination is whether the trial Court is justified in directing issuance of summons against the petitioner to depose in the suit as a Court witness, on behalf of his adversary viz., the 1st respondent, under Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C.? 8. Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C., 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." 9. In terms thereof, it is the discretion of the Court to examine any person at the trial including a party to the suit. Only exception to. this Rule is that the person so to be called, as a witness by a party, should not have been cited or called as a witness by the same party. Discretion is also given to the Court to summon such witness on its own motion either to depose or to produce any document in his possession. 10. Learned trial Judge mainly relied on the ruling of the composite High Court at Hyderabad in Kosuru Kalinga Maharaju v. Kosuru Kaikamma 2000 (2) ALT 409 : 1999 (6) ALD 789 in this respect. 11. It was a case where while explaining the import of Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C, on facts, finding that appropriate reasons were. not assigned by the party, who sought to call his adversary as a witness, liberty was given to him to file an appropriate application in the trial Court while dismissing the civil revision petition. This ruling was also referred to in C.R.P. Nos. 2778 and 2802 of 2016 on the file of the composite High Court at Hyderabad, dated 31.03.2017, wherein specific distinction was drawn between Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C., and Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C. It was a case where PW. This ruling was also referred to in C.R.P. Nos. 2778 and 2802 of 2016 on the file of the composite High Court at Hyderabad, dated 31.03.2017, wherein specific distinction was drawn between Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C., and Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C. It was a case where PW. 4, examined on behalf of the plaintiff, was sought to be summoned for the purpose of cross-examination and when the above petition was allowed, this Court while adverting to the effect of Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C., as well as Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C., did not favour to confirm the discretion so exercised. This ruling is relied on behalf of the petitioner in support of his contention. 12. Practice of trial Courts in permitting. adversary, as a witness on behalf of the party to the suit, was found fault with as early as in the year 1909, in Lal Kunwar v. Chiranji Lal 1909-32 Allahabad 104 and in the year 1938 Mahunt Shatrugan Das v. Bawa Sham Dass and others AIR 1938 Privy Council 59. Similar view was expressed in another judgment of Mysore High Court in Mallangowda and others v. Gavisiddangowda and another AIR 1959 Kar 194 . The effect of these rulings was considered and was favoured in Varadharajan v. Saravanan and D. Babu v. K.A. Dinachandran and others 2012 (0) SCJ Online (Mad) 1971 : 2013 (1)MLJ 24 . 13. However, on behalf of the respondent while relying on the ruling cited in the order under revision, further reliance is placed in National Insurance Company Limited and another v. Susru Sea Foods 2005 (1) ALT 297 : 2005 (1) ALD 464 to support the view of the learned trial Judge. It was observed in the above ruling that the Court, in the interest of justice can always summon even a stranger and in a given case any of the parties to the suit to give evidence, if such evidence is required for resolution of dispute in an effective manner. 14. The 1st respondent intends to introduce a certified copy of the deposition of the petitioner in evidence on his behalf obviously to impeach his credit in relation to the suit claim. 14. The 1st respondent intends to introduce a certified copy of the deposition of the petitioner in evidence on his behalf obviously to impeach his credit in relation to the suit claim. It is not clear from the material available in these revision petitions as to the nature of defence set up by the petitioner in the suit and the nature of the written statement filed by him, if at all he had chosen to. Undisputedly, he did not enter the witness box either to support his version at the trial or to controvert the claim of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent alone seemed to have let in evidence on his behalf opposing the claim of the 1st respondent at the trial. 15. Calling an adversary as a witness by one of the parties to the suit, in view of the pronouncements of Privy Council referred to above, is a bad practice and the weight of judicial pronouncements seems to favour such approach. However, on behalf of the 1st respondent referring to import of Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C. and the rulings cited on his behalf, it is strenuously contended that the trial Court has ample power to call an opposite party as a witness on his behalf by a party and there is no bar as such. 16. The difficulty which the 1st respondent apparently faced in the course of trial is his failure to mark and exhibit certified copy of the deposition of the petitioner herein in O.S. No. 485 of 2012 on the file of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, though he claims that it has certain amount of bearing in the present matter. As seen from the order under revisions as well as the counter of the petitioner in both these revision petitions in the trial Court, his attempt to recall himself and produce the certified copy of this deposition was negatived by the trial Court. He did not carry the matter in revision to this Court. A certified copy of the deposition can' be made admissible in the course of trial as. a public document in terms of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act (for brevity 'the Act'). He did not carry the matter in revision to this Court. A certified copy of the deposition can' be made admissible in the course of trial as. a public document in terms of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act (for brevity 'the Act'). It appears that it was refused to be exhibited through the 1st respondent at the trial, on the premise that the petitioner is a living person and whose statement could not be taken as evidence. In. the order under revision there is a reference to Section 35 of the Act on which such objection was taken by the trial Court itself. 17. However, as seen from the copy of the affidavit of the 1st respondent, in I.A. No. 304 of 2018, which is a part of the material papers filed in these revision petitions, the 1st respondent sought to reopen his evidence and to recall him as PW. 1 for the purpose of exhibiting the aforestated certified copy of the deposition of the petitioner in O.S. No. 485 of 2012. Unfortunately, in these revision petitions, the copies of the petition and affidavit of the 1st respondent filed in I.A. No. 3.05 of 2019, are not filed. But on such premise in the trial Court or at this stage in these revision petitions, no objection was or is raised on behalf of the 1st respondent. 18. It is not as though, the 1st respondent has no recourse to prove the statement of the petitioner in O.S. No. 485 of 2012. It can be produced through any other witness on his behalf, including summoning the staff of the concerned Court. In as much as the certified copy of deposition is a part of the record of the Court, certainly there is a presumption of authenticity including its contents and basing on the proceedings before the Court in the above suit such a document as such could be produced and exhibited in evidence. The 1st respondent has also a right to claim and contend on account of such conduct of the petitioner in failing to enter the witness box in the suit and in holding himself back from the trial on the premise that he did so purposely, requiring the Court to draw an adverse inference against him. The 1st respondent has also a right to claim and contend on account of such conduct of the petitioner in failing to enter the witness box in the suit and in holding himself back from the trial on the premise that he did so purposely, requiring the Court to draw an adverse inference against him. It is also open for the 1st respondent to contend that on account of the want of evidence from the petitioner at the trial, he had shut out the best evidence possible. Rightly, in this context B. Mallmma and others v. V.T.V. Ranga Chary 1997 (6) LT 36 is relied on, wherein in para-25, in somewhat similar factual context as is observed in this case, it was held thus- "The defendants did not enter the box to disprove the said document; in effect it must be held that the defendants admitted the said document. It is a well settled principle of law that averments made by one party if not denied by the other party, the other party is presumed to have admitted the averments made by his adversary." 19. In the above backdrop, when the practice to recall adversary is found to be unhealthy in the course of trial by a party, it is not desirable that the petitioner be called to depose at the instance of the 1st respondent. If such course is encouraged, ominous possibilities and consequences can be foreseen. When there are ways and means for the 1st respondent to impeach the credit of the petitioner in. relation to his claim in the suit and as stated above, it is not necessary that the petitioner be called as his witness at the trial. However, liberty can be given to the 1st respondent to lead further evidence on his behalf to prove the deposition of the petitioner in O.S. No. 485 of 2012 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 20. Application of Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C., should be an exception, particularly when a party desires to call his adversary, as a witness and merely because it is. permissible, when the facts and circumstances of the case did not warrant such action, the trial Court need not exercise discretion in that direction. The rulings relied on behalf of the respondent referred to supra, should be read in the backdrop of the fact situation considered therein. 21. permissible, when the facts and circumstances of the case did not warrant such action, the trial Court need not exercise discretion in that direction. The rulings relied on behalf of the respondent referred to supra, should be read in the backdrop of the fact situation considered therein. 21. It is also contended for the petitioner that the trial Court could not have exercised the discretion to reopen the evidence of the 1st respondent for mere asking. In this context reliance is placed on M/s. Baai Construction, through its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Bagai v. M/s. Gupta Building Material Store, a judgment of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C). No. 35268 of 2011, dated 22.02.2013. In this ruling, referring to the facts of the case in para-12 it was observed as under: "In fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered. We are satisfied that the plaintiff has filed those two applications before the trial Court in order to overcome the lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was not given adequate opportunity. In fact, the materials placed show that the plaintiff has filed both the applications after more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. During the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further shows that final arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve the ease, the plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 C.P.C." 22. While bearing in mind the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, when interests of justice warrants, particularly having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case where the conduct of the petitioner is proved of such nature that he purposely held himself back without coming forward to depose in the suit, it is always desirable to give an opportunity to the 1st respondent to expose his nature by letting in appropriate evidence. 23. 23. In view of the reasons cited supra, while dismissing C.R.P. No. 1337 of 2019 the order of the trial Court in I.A. No. 304 of 2019 to reopen the evidence of the 1st respondent/plaintiff is confirmed, for the purpose of letting in evidence oh his behalf to introduce certified copy of the deposition of the petitioner in O.S. No. 485 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in evidence, through any other witness as is open to him. 24. C.R.P. No. 1348 of 2019 is allowed and the order in I.A. No. 305 of 2019 in O.S. No. 35 of 2016 dated 23.04.2019 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.