ORDER : This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.07.2022, dismissing the I.A.No.330 of 2022 in O.S.No.200 of 2018 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, filed by the plaintiffs under Order XVI Rule 14 and Section 151 of C.P.C., to issue summons to the Mandal Surveyor, Kakinada Rural Mandal, to give evidence as court witness as he assisted the Advocate Commissioner appointed in I.A.No.807 of 2018. 2. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.807 of 2018, seeking appointment of the Commissioner. When the said application was allowed and an advocate was appointed as Commissioner for taking measurements at the plaint scheduled property, help of a Mandal Surveyor was ordered. Now, the petitioners contend that the Commissioner could not properly answer the work memo points submitted and also follow the directions in the warrant and therefore, the objections to the report of the commissioner were filed and that when the Commissioner was examined as P.W.6, the plans drawn by the Commissioner were marked as Ex.C2 to C4 which were furnished by the Mandal Surveyor who assisted her. The petitioners further contended that the commissioner stated in her evidence that she filed those plans without verification and expressed ignorance regarding them and therefore it necessitated the petitioners to summon the Mandal Surveyor to give evidence about those plans. 3. When the notice was given to the respondent/defendant, no counter was filed. After hearing both sides, on perusing the record and considering the submissions, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court observing that the appointment of commissioner is only to localize and measure the properties of both parities with the Mandal Surveyor and basing on the documents of both parties and as per the orders in I.A.No.807 of 2018, under the Commissioner, with the help of the Mandal Surveyor, submitted the report with plans and further PW6 stated in the evidence as regarding the survey conducted and therefore the contentions raised by both parties in respect of Ex.C1 to C4 would be decided after completion of trial Court while appreciating the evidence. 4. 4. Having agreed by the order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed stating that the Court ought to have allowed the said petition to know the encroachment made by the defendant in the plaint schedule property and that the Mandal Surveyor had wrongly shown in the map and the report as though the property of the petitioners under Ex.A1 to A3 are extended into the land in Sy.No.329/1 also, but they are situated in Sy.No.332 of Thimmapuram Village only. It is further contended that the Commissioner/P.W.6 expressed ignorance about the plans filed under Ex.C2 to C4 and therefore, it is necessary to examine the Mandal Surveyor, but the trial Court failed to appreciate the importance of the evidence of Mandal Surveyor to adjudicate the matter. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions of the petitioner in the grounds of revision. 6. M/s. Gnanusha, learned counsel representing the counsel for the respondents argued that though the respondent did not file counter to the petition, it is open for the respondent to show to the Court that the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted. So, she further argued that the petitioners seek to summon the Mandal Surveyor as a Court witness in order to bring the evidence which they could not do through examination of the Commissioner/PW6. She further submitted that the petitioners stated in the affidavit that in the cross-examination of PW6, she pleaded ignorance, however, PW6 was never cross-examined by the petitioners and that the relief cannot be granted. She further stated that the neither the Commissioner nor the Mandal Surveyor can be called by a party as their witness, however, the Commissioner, being an extended hand of Court, was erroneously examined as PW6 and that by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the error can be set right. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners need to examine the Mandal Surveyor as a witness and for that purpose, summons are required as the witness does not come on behalf of the petitioners since he is an official witness and would not come at the mere request of the private parties. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners need to examine the Mandal Surveyor as a witness and for that purpose, summons are required as the witness does not come on behalf of the petitioners since he is an official witness and would not come at the mere request of the private parties. Therefore, he further submitted that irrespective of the provision of law quoted, the petitioners are entitled to seek issuance of summons by the Court to him as a witness for the petitioners and for that purpose, the provision of Order XVI Rule 1 CPC can be invoked. He further stated that quoting of an erroneous provision of law is not the criterion and the relief, if it can be granted under any provision of law, the same shall not be refused. He further submitted that the Surveyor may not be a Court witness, the Court may issue summons to him for giving evidence as a witness for the petitioners. 8. When a fact is to be proved, the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act would govern as to how the fact is to be proved. It also dealt with examination of witnesses in chapter X of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 135 of the Evidence Act says about the order in which the witnesses are to be produced. It further says that the order of the witnesses to be produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being related to civil and criminal procedure respectively and in the absence of any such law by the discretion of the Court. 9. Order XVI Rule 1(1) CPC says that a list of witnesses to be examined by a party and the documents to be produced shall be filed not later than 15 days after the date on which the issues are settled and the party proposing to examine a witness or produce documents shall obtain summons to such person for their attendance in Court. Rule 1(3) further says that the Court may for the reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call whether through summoning by Court or otherwise any witness other than those whose names appear in the list furnished, if such party shows sufficient cause for omission to mention the name in the list of witnesses. Rule 1(3) further says that the Court may for the reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call whether through summoning by Court or otherwise any witness other than those whose names appear in the list furnished, if such party shows sufficient cause for omission to mention the name in the list of witnesses. However, Rule 1A further states that subject to the provision of Rule 1(3) CPC, any party to a suit may, without applying for summons under Rule 1, bring any witness to give evidence or to produce documents. Order XVI, Rule 14 CPC states that subject to the provisions of the Code as to attendance and appearance and to any law for the time being in force, whether the Court at any time think 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, on its own motion, cause such person to be summoned as a witness to give evidence or to produce any document in his possession on the appointed day. 10. Therefore, first of all, a party who intends to examine any witness or produce any document shall file a list. For examining any witness even without applying for summons, a party can produce the witness or the documents in evidence on behalf of the party. Even though a witness or document is not in the list, with the permission of the Court, such witness can be examined or document can be produced. If only the parties do not examine a witness, but it appears to the Court that a witness is to be examined, the Court may, on its own motion, summon a person to be a witness to give evidence or to produce documents. A party can ask a Court to exercise its suomoto powers. When a step is taken by a Court under Rule 14, usually, the said witness is called as a Court witness. 11. The proposed witness, i.e., the Mandal Surveyor, is not shown as a witness prior to filing of this petition. However, it does not debar a party to examine him as a witness, since Order XVI Rule 1(3) permits to do so. 11. The proposed witness, i.e., the Mandal Surveyor, is not shown as a witness prior to filing of this petition. However, it does not debar a party to examine him as a witness, since Order XVI Rule 1(3) permits to do so. If the said witness accepts the request of the party to appear before the Court and give evidence, he can be produced as a witness without being summoned. However, if the witness does not accede to a request of the party to give evidence, it is open for the party to seek issuance of summons to the said witness as a witness for the party calling him. For that purpose, Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC requires permission of the Court which can be granted by recording reasons. 12. In the present case, the petitioners have already examined the commissioner who could not give answers sufficient to explain the contents of the report and the plans already marked as evidence, by expressing her ignorance as the matter was assisted by the Mandal Surveyor. The assistance of the Mandal Surveyor was given to the commissioner for execution of the warrant as the survey involves special knowledge. As per the orders, the Mandal Surveyor assisted the Commissioner and therefore, he has personal knowledge of the plans prepared and the matters relating to the survey which is part of the direction in the warrant issued to the Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioners intend to examine him as a witness. When parties intend to examine him as a witness, the surveyor can very well be summoned by a court under Order XVI, Rule 1 CPC and he need not be summoned as a Court witness under Order XVI, Rule 14 CPC. 13. Even when a witness is called by a party, the procedure contemplated under Section 138 of the Evidence Act regarding Chief examination, cross examination and re-examination, shall be followed. If at all, the party calling him intends to put questions that may be put in cross-examination by the adverse party, Section 154 of the Evidence Act permits the party to seek permission of the Court to put such questions. If at all, the party calling him intends to put questions that may be put in cross-examination by the adverse party, Section 154 of the Evidence Act permits the party to seek permission of the Court to put such questions. As such, the relief as sought for by the petitioners to summon the Mandal Surveyor as a court witness is not required, but as represented, the Mandal Surveyor ought to have been summoned by Court to give evidence under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. 14. Coming to the contention that the commissioner ought not to have been examined as a witness for a party, it cannot be said that a commissioner is an extended hand of Court and cannot be a witness. Since the evidence of PW6/commissioner does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality as argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, in view of the procedure contemplated under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC discussed above, and the same is not the subject matter of this revision, even by exercising the authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same does not require any interference. The deficiency in the evidence of PW6 is referred as a reason for calling the Mandal Surveyor as a witness for the petitioners. 15. As such, mere erroneous statement that PW6 stated in the ‘cross-examination’ though the witness was not cross-examined by the petitioners, the relief otherwise can be granted need not be refused. 16. The observations of the trial Court in dismissing the petition are not sustainable to refuse the relief. In the light of the foregoing discussion, since the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction, the order impugned in the revision needs interference and is liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 19.07.2022, passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in I.A.No.330 of 2022 in O.S.No.200 of 2018, and consequently the said petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.