JUDGMENT : 1. Correctness or otherwise of the order dated 19.11.2020, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 343/2015, is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India readwith Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is to be mentioned here that vide the impugned order, dated 19.11.2020, the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, rejected the Petition No. 4269/2018, filed by the petitioner as plaintiff for summoning the DTO, Kamrup (M), as witness as well as production of record from his office in respect of 2 (two) vehicles bearing Registration Nos. AS-01DD-7133 & AS-01DD-7185. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “The petitioner instituted a Civil Suit against the respondent, being Title Suit No. 343/2015, for specific performance of contract of 2 (two) oral agreements that have been entered into by the petitioner and the respondent in respect of 3 (three) vehicles bearing Registration Nos. AS-01DC-8752, AS-01DD-7133 & AS-01DD-7185. The respondent contested the said Suit and submitted Written Statement-cum-Counter Claim. While the said Suit was in the final stage of argument, the petitioner, on the advice of his counsel, made an enquiry with regard to the present status of aforesaid vehicles by way of utilizing the portal “Vahan” being maintained by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highway and then the petitioner came to know from the SMS, which he has received over his mobile, that the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01DC-8752 was still with the respondent and the other 2 (two) vehicles bearing Registration Nos. AS-01DD-7133 & AS-01DD-7185 appears to be sold to Atfur Rahman Talukdar and Md. Nazim Uddin Laskar, respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Application under Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Civil Judge on 14.11.2018, seeking direction to be issued to the Transport Authority (DTO) to produce record pertaining to the said 3 (three) vehicles in question, but the learned Court below, after hearing both the parties, was pleased to dismiss the petition. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.” 3. Heard Mr. A. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent though notice was served upon the respondent through Dasti service. 4. Mr. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.” 3. Heard Mr. A. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent though notice was served upon the respondent through Dasti service. 4. Mr. A. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that obtaining status of the vehicle and examination of the DTO is very much necessary before the learned Court below otherwise the very purpose of filing the present Suit will be defeated. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended to set aside the impugned order and to direct the learned Court below to obtain the status report of the DTO and to examine him as witness. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record including the impugned order dated 19.11.2020. It appears that on filing of the Petition No. 4269/2018, under Order 16 Rule 14 readwith Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Court below heard both the parties and also considered the petition and objection filed by the defendant and, thereafter, pleased to dismiss the same by holding as under: “the purpose of ascertaining the fact regarding transfer/sale of vehicles the deposition of DTO is unwarranted as because the plaintiff can produce any document to that effect even during the stage of argument. It is also not clear as to what made the plaintiff to enquire about the status of the vehicles at the stage of argument because such an endeavour ought to have been made at the earliest instance by the plaintiff but the same was not done. Further contention of the plaintiff that after the DW-1 took bond in respect of the vehicles in the Court having criminal jurisdiction has no relevance to this Suit because the matter are diversely related. Furthermore the Suit is for specific performance of contract and the appreciation is to be done on the basis of the contractual obligations alone and not on any sale or transfer of the subject matter.” 6. The learned Court below further held that the petition is filed at a very belated stage and the prejudice will be cause to the defendant if the prayer is allowed at this stage and, thereafter, the learned Court below had rejected the petition. 7. The learned Court below further held that the petition is filed at a very belated stage and the prejudice will be cause to the defendant if the prayer is allowed at this stage and, thereafter, the learned Court below had rejected the petition. 7. It is to be mentioned here that Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “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 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.” 8. A cursory perusal of the aforesaid provision left no doubt in our mind as to the fact that either party to the proceeding can summon a person including a party to the suit which is not called as a witness by a party to the suit. What is laid down in the above provision is that if the Court is satisfied about such a necessity to cause any person to be examined as a witness, the Court can summon such person. The emphasis is laid on the subjective satisfaction of the Court. However, this power is to be exercised by the Court guardedly and not as a matter of routine. 9. Therefore, a party who prefers a petition under Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to satisfy the Court by showing sufficient reason seeking assistance of the Court for summoning a person as a witness including a party to the suit. So long, the Court is not satisfied with the reason assigned by such a party, who wants to invoke the provision, the Court shall not act upon such a request. 10. So long, the Court is not satisfied with the reason assigned by such a party, who wants to invoke the provision, the Court shall not act upon such a request. 10. In the case of P.S. Chetty v. K.E. Reddy: 1988(1) ALT 279 , the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held as under: “…..It is true that the Court is not obligated to invoke the power at the instance of the parties and the parties have no right to move an application under this rule. But, however either of the parties can bring to the notice of the Court the necessity for examining any person as Court witness. On such application the Court may scan the totality of facts and circumstances apart from the situations projected by the parties and arrive at an independent conclusion as to the necessity of a Court witness. The parties are not totally barred from bringing to the notice of the Court by application or otherwise and the Court is not bound to take action on the averments or allegations contained in the application and it is the sole discretion of the Court. The application by the parties may be considered as passing on the information so that the Court may examine the issue in-depth on the facts and circumstances set out in the application and other aspects.” 11. Thus, it appears that the power under Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a discretionary one. The party which wants to invoke this provision has to satisfy the Court and the satisfaction of the Court is the subjective satisfaction and the power has to be exercised by the Court guardedly and not in a routine manner. 12. In the case in hand, having gone through the order of the learned Court below and also considering the reasons assigned but for rejecting the Petition No. 4269/2018, appears to be not at all unjustified or illogical. It is to be noted here that the suit was filed for specific purpose of the contract and the same has to be decided on the basis of contractual agreement alone and not on any sale or transfer of the subject matter as held by the learned Court below. It is to be noted here that the suit was filed for specific purpose of the contract and the same has to be decided on the basis of contractual agreement alone and not on any sale or transfer of the subject matter as held by the learned Court below. It also appears that in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 183 of 2015, lodged by the respondent, all the three aforementioned vehicles have been seized by Police and the same were released in the custody of the respondent on execution of three separate bond by order of the Judicial Magistrate. As such, the apprehension, of the petitioner that the purpose of the suit will be defeated in the event of not calling the status report and calling the DTO, is totally unfounded. Moreover, the petitioner has filed the petition at a belated stage while the case was pending for hearing of final argument and the learned Court below has rightly observed that prejudice will be cause to the respondent if the prayer is allowed at this belated stage. 13. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and in the given facts and circumstances the same left this Court unimpressed. 14. In view of the above, I find no merit in this Civil Revision Petition and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.