JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 24.11.2018 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Una, District Una, in CMA No. 1071 of 2016 in Civil Suit No. 626/2013 may kindly be set aside and the application under Order 16 read with Section 151 of the CPC may kindly be allowed and justice be done." 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that petitioner herein has filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit property being the legal heirs of deceased Shri Jagan Nath with consequential relief of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants from making any kind of alienation/changing nature of the suit land etc. The suit is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. (2), Una, District Una, H.P. During the pendency of this suit, an application was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 16 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 thereof, for summoning defendants Madan Mohan and Rajinder Kumar as witnesses. It was mentioned in the application so filed, which is appended with the present petition as Annexure P-3 that one witness Ashok Kumar deliberately and intentionally denied writing of his brothers Madan Mohan and Rajinder Kumar and this fact can only be put to the defendants concerned by confronting them with the document, which required presence of the defendants as witnesses. 3. The application was resisted by the defendants inter alia on the ground that it was for the plaintiff to prove his case and defendants were not supposed to collect evidence in favour of the plaintiff/applicant. It was also the stand of the defendant before the learned Trial Court that compelling a witness to depose against himself was prohibited under the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and as the defendants were senior citizens, filing of the application was just a delay tactic being adopted by the plaintiff/applicant. 4. It was also the stand of the defendant before the learned Trial Court that compelling a witness to depose against himself was prohibited under the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and as the defendants were senior citizens, filing of the application was just a delay tactic being adopted by the plaintiff/applicant. 4. Vide impugned order dated 24.11.2018, the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by holding that a party to a suit does not has any specific right to summon other party to be examined on his side. Learned Trial Court held that in the absence of there being any such provision conferring any such right on a party, it must be held that a party to a suit has no right to summon his opponent to give evidence on his behalf. On these grounds, the application stands dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff/petitioner has filed this petition. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders as well as other documents appended with the petition. 7. The order which has been passed by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein is prima facie perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Trial Court has erred in holding that a party to a suit has no specific right to summon opposite party as witness to be examined by it. On the contrary, there is no bar that a party to a suit cannot summon the other party as its own witness. Of course, it will be on its own peril. Once such an application is filed by either of the parties before the Court, then, it is not as if the application is to be mechanically allowed. The Court of course will look into the genuineness of the application and if satisfied that the application is bonafide and examination of either party by the opposite party is necessary, then appropriate orders on the same are to be passed by the learned Court below. Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court while answering a Reference, in CMPMO No. 273 of 2016, titled as Virender Singh and another versus Kamal Kumar and others, has held as under:- 8. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court while answering a Reference, in CMPMO No. 273 of 2016, titled as Virender Singh and another versus Kamal Kumar and others, has held as under:- 8. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 24.11.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Una, District Una, in CMA No. 1071 of 2016 filed in Civil Suit No. 626/2013, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Court below for adjudication on the application so filed before it by the petitioner/plaintiff afresh after taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in CMPMO No. 273 of 2016, supra. It is clarified that this Court has made no observations on the merit of the case and the application on merit shall be decided by the learned Court below uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court while adjudicating this petition. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.