THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.4182 of 2010 ORDER: O.S.No.23 of 2004 was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner figured as defendant No.8 in the suit. The evidence of the petitioner herein was closed. On an application filed by him, the evidence was re-opened, enabling him to adduce evidence, to prove the Will, marked as Ex.B-1. Thereafter, the petitioner sought to examine a person, who is said to have scribed Ex.B-1. Stating that some of the respondents have threatened him, and thereby the witness abstained from giving evidence, the petitioner filed I.A.No.136 of 2010, under Rule 1 of Order 16 C.P.C., with a prayer to summon the said witness. The application was opposed by the respondents 1 and 2. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 04-08-2010. The same is challenged in the writ petition. Heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. The effort of the petitioner was, to examine the scribe of Ex.B-1. According to the petitioner, the witness was brought to the Court, but on being threatened by respondents 1 and 2, he refused to give evidence. Therefore, he sought the help of the Court to summon the witness, under Rule 1 of Order 16 C.P.C. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., by applying the principle laid down in two judgments, rendered by this Court, in THIMMARAJU SHYAMA SUNDER RAO AND ANOTHER V. THIMMARAJAU JITTENDER RAO AND OTHERS[1] a n d A. SHANKAR LINGAM V. MEHARUNNISSA BEGUM AND OTHERS[2]. In both of them, it was held that a belated application filed under Rule 1 of Order 16 C.P.C., cannot be entertained. In the instant case, the application was filed, soon after the petitioner felt that the witness is being threatened. Further, the very purpose of re- opening the evidence of the petitioner was, to enable him to examine the witness, in support of Ex.B-1. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has relied upon a judgment, rendered by this Court, which is to the effect that an application filed under Rule 1 of Order 16 C.P.C., cannot be entertained, unless the basis of such evidence is disclosed. In the instant case, the petitioner categorically stated that he proposed to examine the witness, to prove Ex.B-1. Viewed from any angle, the order under revision cannot be sustained in law. The C.R.P. is accordingly allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. As a consequence, I.A.No.136 of 2010 is allowed. The trial Court shall issue summons to the witness of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-03-2011. KO [1] 2007(4) ALD 20 [2] 2007 (2) ALD 578