THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.4831 of 2010 Date of Order: 29-07-2011 Between: Chadalavad Seshagiri Rao ..Petitioner and Lingam Venkata Ratnam ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4831 of 2010 Oral order: This revision by the petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the orders of the Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Gudivada in I.A.No.297 of 2010 in O.S.No.96 of 2009 dated 25-09-2010 dismissing the I.A. filed for summoning Gupta Narendra Prasad as a witness. The suit is filed for recovery of suit pronote debt. On completion of evidence on the plaintiff’s side, when the matter is coming up for the evidence of the defendant, defendant filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination on 23-08-2010. He was absent on 23-08-2010 and 26-08-2010 for cross- examination. Ultimately he was examined on 31-08-2010 and filed the impugned I.A. for summoning Gutta Narendra Prasad to give evidence and also to issue summons to M.Rajesh, Advocate to produce copy of the registered notice. On dismissal of the same present revision is filed. Petitioner/defendant in his written statement took a stand on plaintiff issuing notice for summoning in the year 2006, he went to the plaintiff’s house along with Gutta Narendra Prasad, arrived actual amount payable at Rs.2,83,000/- and at the request of the plaintiff he executed pronote in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of Gutta Narendra Prasad; the petitioner also accepted the demand of the plaintiff for interest and accordingly paid an amount of Rs.6,400/- to the plaintiff through the said Gutta Narendra Prasad for a period of 27 months and subsequently failed to pay the interest. When the plaintiff issued notice on 20-04-2009, petitioner along with Gutta Narendra Prasad went to the house of the plaintiff and questioned him about the false allegations; then the plaintiff assured that he is prepared to receive the actual amount but not as claimed in the notice. The lower court dismissed the IA only on the ground that it is not stated Gutta Narendra Prasad is not coming to give evidence without summons from the Court so as to consider the request of the petitioner. It is stated the advocate who issued legal notice on behalf of the plaintiff in the year 2006 cannot be summoned which is a privileged communication between him and the plaintiff and the petitioner/defendant is not entitled to summon M.Rajesh, Advocate for examining him in the suit to produce copy of the notice. Even according to the petitioner, M.Rajesh, Advocate appeared in the year 2006 on behalf of the plaintiff; therefore, it is for him (advocate) to produce the notice when the plaintiff appears in the witness box. For the said purpose the advocate cannot be summoned to produce the notice issued by him. Therefore, the lower court is justified in dismissing the I.A. rejecting the prayer for summoning M.Rajesh, advocate to produce the notice do not suffer from any illegality. Insofar as summoning Gutta Narendra Prasad is concerned, petitioner/defendant has already taken a plea in the written statement that the matter is settled for an amount of Rs.2,83,000/- and on issuance of notice in the year 2006, the amount was already collected through Gutta Narendra Prasad. Mere not stating that Gutta Narendra Prasad is not coming to give evidence without summons from the Court, summoning the witness, who is not being shown as witness in the suit, cannot be a ground to reject the claim. This Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CALCUTTA v. SUSRU SEA FOODS[1] categorically held after amendment of CPC with effect from 01-02-1977, it is explicitly made clear that even a party to the suit and not called as a witness by a party to the suit can be called by the court as a witness to give evidence or produce any document in his possession. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower court to the extent not summoning Gutta Narendra Prasad is set aside and I.A. is allowed to summon the Gutta Narendra Prasad for giving evidence. The C.R.P. is partly allowed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 29-07-2011 Murthy [1] 2005 (1) ALT 297