ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order, dated 06.03.2024, passed in I.A. No.561 of 2022 in O.S. No.91 of 2013 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikalahasti (for short "the trial Court"), wherein the trial Court allowed the Interlocutory Application, filed under Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short "the CPC" ) to summon the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu Mandal, and C.E.O., Sathyavedu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (PACS), Rachapalem, Sathyavedu Mandal. 2. Heard Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri S. Varadarajulu, learned counsel for respondents, and perused the record. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants before the trial Court in O.S. No.91 of 2013. The suit is filed for specific performance, directing the defendant No.1 to come and execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of agreement of sale letter, dated 30.04.1985, to an extent of Ac.2.85 cents in S.No.86 of P.V.Puram village accounts, Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District and to declare that the alleged gift settlement deed, dated 06.09.2011, executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 as null and void. 4. In the trial Court, issues were framed in 2015. PWs.1 to PW.5 were examined on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, DWs.1 to DW.3 were examined on behalf of the defendants. On 26.12.2019 the trial Court closed the evidence. At that stage, the respondents/defendants filed the present Application under Order XVI, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC , seeking to issue summons to the Tahsildar of Sathyavedu Mandal and the C.E.O. of Sathyavedu PACS, Rachapalem, Sathyavedu Mandal, to produce the Fair Adangal, 1-B Namuna, RoR, and Adangal Pahani issued by the Tahsildar, relating to the lands in Sy.No.86 covering an area of Ac.3.60 cents in P.V. Puram village, as well as the Mortgage Deed, dated 21.01.1999, which was mortgaged in favour of PACS by late C. Narayana Raju, son of C. Sidda Raju (late), from Chamarthi Kandriga village, in order to adduce evidence based on those documents. 5. 5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court has issued summons to the proposed witnesses, i.e., the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu Mandal and C.E.O., Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, for the production of records, since both parties are claiming property under a sale letter and a registered gift settlement deed. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner herein filed the present Revision. 7. Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, contends that Rule 129 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 require that an Application under this Rule must specify the relevance of the documents or document before summoning the witnesses. Since all the relevant documents have already been filed before the trial Court, summoning the officers to testify is unwarranted and lacks proper justification. Consequently, the trial Court erred in allowing the Application, which has resulted in this Civil Revision Petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants, contends that the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any manifest procedural impropriety or palpable perversity. The Court, under Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC , has the power to summon any witness on its own accord. The trial Court allowed the Application by passing a reasoned order. The question of admissibility and relevancy of the documents in evidence will be decided at the appropriate stage. He, therefore, asserts that summoning the Government Officials, along with the necessary documents, is essential to prove their case. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, relied on a decision of this Court in Sidda Lingamma v. Sidda Lingamma and Others, 2005 (2) ALD 115 wherein it was held that when the original document is unavailable for verification and when it is difficult to ascertain whether such document has been altered, in such circumstances, certified copy of the original serves no purpose and directed the trial Court to issue summons to the MRO for production of 1-B Register. 9. It is relevant to extract Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC , which reads as follows: “ 14. 9. It is relevant to extract Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC , which reads as follows: “ 14. Order - XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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.” 10. From the above, it is evident that under Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC , a party can seek to summon any person as a witness; however, it is for the Court to determine whether the examination of such witness is necessary. 11. The suit instituted by the plaintiff for specific performance was based on a sale letter, dated 30.04.1985. The respondents have submitted 1-B Namuna, RoR, Adangal, Pahanis, and Patta Passbooks in the name of late C. Narayana Raju. The respondents have filed an Application under Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC to summon the Tahsildar and CEO of PACS, Sathyavedu Mandal, who are in possession of the original records. The 1 st respondent (D-1) claims that the property was mortgaged by his father to Sathyavedu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society on 21.01.1999. The respondents contended that summoning these witnesses to give evidence would facilitate an effective adjudication of the dispute. 12. This Court does not find any infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the trial Court in passing the impugned order. 13. In a similar situation, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in P. Subrahmanyam Chetty v. Hatari Ellappa Reddy , 1988 (1) ALT 279 (S.B.) ruled that neither party is prohibited from filing an Application to summon a person as a witness. When such an Application is made, the Court has the authority, under Order XVI, Rule 14 of the CPC , to summon such individual to testify or to produce any relevant documents in their possession. When such an Application is made, the Court has the authority, under Order XVI, Rule 14 of the CPC , to summon such individual to testify or to produce any relevant documents in their possession. 14. In another decision of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in National Insurance Company Limited and others v. Susru Sea Foods, Visakhapatnam , (1999) 6 ALD 789 , it was held as under at Para No.15: “ 15. That a plain reading of the said provision makes it abundantly clear that a Civil Court is conferred with jurisdiction and power to examine any person including a party to the suit and not called as a witness by a party to the suit. This can be done on its own motion, which means and includes that its jurisdiction can even be set in motion by any of the parties to the suit. The words “to examine any person, including a party to the suit” has been substituted for “to examine any person other than a party to the suit” by Act 104 of 1976, with effect from 01-02-1977. What was otherwise implicit is now made explicit that even a party to the suit and not called as a witness by a party to the suit can be called by the Court as a witness to give evidence, or to produce any document in his possession.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. Based on the decisions above, if an Application is filed under Order XVI, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC , the Court can exercise its discretionary power to summon a witness for a thorough adjudication. However, in the present case, the respondents/defendants have not shown due diligence in filing the present Application after closure of evidence. Since the authenticity of the documents is in question, the Court, in the interest of justice, can summon the witnesses. To resolve the dispute in an effective manner, the Court can summon government officials. However, this power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner. Since the parties claim title to the suit land, summoning the concerned officers in order to resolve the issue once and for all. 16. To resolve the dispute in an effective manner, the Court can summon government officials. However, this power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner. Since the parties claim title to the suit land, summoning the concerned officers in order to resolve the issue once and for all. 16. The impugned order, dated 06.03.2024, passed by the trial Court is not vitiated by any illegality and does not suffer from any error, much less jurisdictional error, requiring any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. Accordingly, with the above observation, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.