J.M. Panchal, J.
1. The order dated October 18, 1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Vanthli, below application Exh. 71 in Regular Civil Suit No. 110 of 1985 is the subject-matter of challenge in the present revision application which is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has directed that two witnesses, namely, (1) the original owner of the property Shri Liladhar Hansraj, and (2) Talati-cum-Mantri of Shapur village be examined as Court witnesses.
2. From the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Judge has felt it necessary to examine the two witnesses as Court witnesses in order to find out the fact as to whether the Naveli exists at the disputed place as there is no reference to the existence of Naveli in one of the Sanads produced by the parties for the buildings respectively owned by them.
3. The submission that the order has been passed without jurisdiction has no substance. Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that subject to the provisions of the 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. The learned Judge has given good reasons for exercising powers under Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code. The order by which the original owner of the property and the Talati-cum-Mantri of village Shapur have been summoned as witnesses cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner so as to call for interference of this Court in the present revision application.
4. No jurisdictional error is committed by the learned Judge in passing the impugned order and the revision is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision application fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated.