Cr.MMO No.177 of 2011. 19.09.2011.Present:Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. This revision is directed against the order dated 20th August, 2011 of the learned Sessions Judge, District Sirmour at Nahan vide which order dated 06.03.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, has been affirmed. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent filed an application for producing Ajay Chauhan, Advocate and,Manager, Union Bank of India, Paonta Sahib as witnesses. It has been submitted that the documents sought to be proved through these witnesses are not necessary in order to determine the real controversy between the parties. The application has been filed just to delay the proceedings and this aspect has not been appreciated by both the Courts below. 2. The learned Magistrate has allowed the application and permitted the respondent to produce Ajay Chauhan, Advocate, and Manager of the Bank. This order has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 20th August, 2011. The learned Sessions Judge has also held that the order dated 06.03.2010 of the learned Magistrate is interlocutory. Once the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the order dated 06.03.2010 is interlocutory, then the revision before the learned Sessions Judge against the order dated 06.03.2010 was -2- not maintainable. This apart, the learned Magistrate has permitted the respondent to produce the aforesaid witnesses. The petitioner will get an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and this has caused no prejudice to the petitioner. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that Ajay Chauhan is pursuing the case on behalf of the respondent as an Advocate. Once the Advocate has been cited by the respondent as a witness, in these circumstances, it is for the Advocate to consider whether he should continue as an Advocate in the case or not. Once he is a witness, it is not in consonance with the legal ethics for the Advocate to continue as an Advocate in the same case which he is pursuing as an Advocate. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of. (Kuldip Singh), Judge. September 19,2011. (Krt)