THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 5504 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 19.10.2010, passed by the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 434 of 2010 in O.S. No. 123 of 2004, filed by the petitioners, praying to issue summons to the purchaser of the plant schedule property for production of the documents listed therein and to give evidence. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order under revision. As can be seen from the order under revision, the respondents- plaintiffs also filed another application in I.A. No. 65 of 2010, praying to summon the six witnesses named therein, who includes the present purchaser of the suit schedule property, to whom the petitioners- defendants, sought issuance of summons by filing the present application. Admittedly, the respondents-plaintiffs filed the present suit for specific performance of agreement. It appears that neither the respondents-plaintiffs nor the petitioners-defendants filed list of witnesses even though Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 makes it mandatory. The petitioners-defendants as also the respondents-plaintiffs, filed the present applications for summoning the witnesses long after closure of the evidence. If according to the petitioners-defendants, the plaint schedule property is purchased by the person to whom they have sought issuance of summons, it was for the respondents-plaintiffs to implead him as party- defendant. But neither the respondents-plaintiffs impleaded the proposed purchasers nor he proposed purchaser has filed any application seeking his impleadment as party-defendant. The purchase made by the proposed purchaser of the plaint schedule property, during the pendency of the present suit, certainly is at his own risk for the same would be hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. That being so, it is not open to the petitioners-defendants to summon the proposed purchaser as a witness, and more so when the petitioners-defendants failed to assign any reason as to why they could not bring him as a witness on their own or that in spite of their best efforts, they could not bring him as a witness. Hence, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Court below, refusing to summon the purchaser of the plaint schedule property as a witness. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 29th December, 2010 KSR