PICHAI Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.No.296 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif, Court, Munsif is the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions. PLAINTIFF filed a suit for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants and their men from interfering with his possession. According to him, property belonged to one Chidambaram Chettiar, son of Sankaran Chettiar. PLAINTIFF became a tenant under Chidambaram Chettiar and he is a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 25 of 1955. After the death of plaintiff's father, plaintiff and his mother became the tenants and they also continue to pay rent to legal heirs of Chidambaram Chettiar who is first defendant in this case. It is the further case of plaintiff that at the instance of second defendant, first defendant began to interfere with the possession of plaintiff which necessitated filing of this suit.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by second defendant, he denied the right of plaintiff to get decree of injunction. According to him, plaintiff was never personally cultivating the land and he has sub-let the property to one Singaravelu and Koothan Chettiar. Various other contentions are also taken by second defendant to show that there has been other transactions regarding schedule property which will prove that plaintiff is not in possession.

(3.) THE scope of O.16, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure came for consideration before Andhra Pradesh High Court in the decision reported in P.S.Chetty v. K.E.Reddy P.S.Chetty v. K.E.Reddy P.S.Chetty v. K.E.Reddy (1988)I A.L.T. 279. After extracting the rule, learned Judge held thus, Order 16, Rule 14, C.P.C. provides that the court may of its own initiative or suo motu cause any person to be examined as a witness though either of the parties did not choose to take steps for summoning such person as a witness. This power obviously intended in the interests of justice is aimed at clarifying certain situations and remove ambiguities and fill up lacuna and thereby further justice. THE parties may refrain from summoning a crucial witness in the event of their apprehension of full fledged support and in such a situation the court may summon such person to give evidence to arrive at the correct factual picture and this witness is called a ?court witness?. O.16, Rule 14 visualises the initiative by the court only to examine any person and it is for the court to consider of its own accord the necessity of invoking power under this rule without propulsion or application by the parties. THE exercise of this power is in the nature of ?self-starter? without extraneous pressure or pull. THE court below while declining to invoke the power appears to have been swayed by consideration that the court is precluded from doing so at the instance of either party. 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 of or allegation 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.? [Italics supplied] From the above decision it is clear that if circumstance exist after scanning entire evidence, if court feels summons have to be issued to a witness it has got power though application is filed by one of the parties to the suit. THE application is considered as reminder to the court.