THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 2278 of 2007 Date of order: 23.7.2010 Between: Sakala Bakthula Venkata Satyanarayana …Petitioner and Mandadi Gopi Krishna ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 2278 of 2007 ORDER: An application filed by the defendant under Order 16, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code’’) to summon the Deputy General Manager, M.M.S.M Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam along with attendance register from 1.7.1998 to 31.7.1998, was rejected by the trial Court under the impugned order dated 12.4.2007 on the ground that the name of the said witness was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred by the defendant. Heard both sides. The affidavit filed by the defendant in support of the said petition shows that in order to establish that the defendant was not in Eluru on the date of execution of pronote and was, in fact, in Visakhapatnam attending to his duties at the Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, he has also filed Ex.B1-true copy of the Attendance Register, which was issued by the Deputy General Manager, M.M.S.M Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam and in order to prove the same, it is necessary to summon and examine the said Deputy General Manager. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and was dismissed by the trial Court under the impugned order on the aforesaid ground. I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot sustain, as there is no requirement of law that the witness summoned under Order 16, Rule 3 of the Code must find his name in the list of witnesses. The suit is of the year 2000 and it was filed for recovery of money by the plaintiff against the defendant, based on a pronote and in order to expedite its disposal, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, (1) That the impugned order is set aside; (2) That the trial Court is directed to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to examine the Deputy General Manager, M.M.S.M. Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam and the Advocate- Commissioner shall file his report within two weeks from the date of furnishing of warrant of commission; (3) That the defendant shall bear all the expenses to be incurred by the Advocate- Commissioner; (4) That both the parties shall cooperate with the trial Court as well as learned Advocate- Commissioner and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments; (5) That the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within two months after the Advocate- Commissioner’s report is received; The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. However, no order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 23.7.2010 KR