THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.926 OF 2010 DATED:23.03.2011 Between: Md.Abdul Malik. .... PETITIONER And Rahatunnisa & 2 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 07.12.2009, in I.A.No.576 of 2009 in O.S.No.1900 of 2005 on the file of the learned XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein- plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading the 3rd respondent herein as the 3rd defendant, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit for declaration that the gift deed, dated 05.03.2004, executed by the proposed 3rd defendant-his mother, in favour of the 1st defendant- his sister, is a fraudulent transaction and for recovery of possession of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. According to the petitioner, the suit property belongs to his mother and that she conveyed the same in favour of the petitioner by way of a gift deed and delivered possession and subsequently the 1st respondent, who is none other than the sister of the petitioner, prevailed upon their mother and obtained the property by way of registered gift deed, dated 05.03.2004. Petitioner alleges that after the gift deed in his favour, the mother had no subsisting rights in the property to convey the same in favour of the daughter by way of registered gift deed. He therefore filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. 4. First respondent-D1 filed written statement contesting the suit. The trial of the suit has commenced. At that stage, petitioner filed I.A.No.576 of 2009, seeking impleadment of his mother as the 3rd defendant on the ground that she is refusing to come to the Court and give evidence. According to the petitioner, his mother is now supporting her daughter i.e. the 1st defendant. In the event of the petitioner desiring that the evidence of his mother shall be made available on record, the proper recourse is to seek issuance of summons under Order XVI CPC. In case the witness against whom summons are issued for attendance before the Court for giving evidence fails to comply with the same, it is open to the petitioner to take necessary steps under Rule 10 of Order XVI CPC and for the purpose of attendance of the witness before the Court. 5. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order XVI CPC states that where the Court sees reason to believe that the evidence of the witness is material, and that such person has, without lawful excuse, failed to attend the Court in compliance with the same or intentionally avoided service, the Court may issue proclamation requiring such person to attend to give evidence. 6. Sub-Rule 3 contemplates that in lieu of or at the time of issuing such proclamation, or at any time afterwards, the Court may, in its discretion, issue a warrant, either with or without bail, for the arrest of such person, and may make an order for the attachment of his property. Thus, if the person who is summoned to give evidence at the instance of a party fails to attend the Court or avoids service of summons, the party is not remediless and the provisions of Order XVI Rule 10 CPC can be invoked to enforce the attendance of the witness before the Court for giving evidence. The apprehension of the petitioner that his mother, who is now supporting her daughter, may not attend the Court or may not receive the summons and even if she receives she may not appear before the Court and give evidence apart from being baseless is also not valid or justifiable ground for impleading his mother as a party-defendant. It is open to the petitioner to seek issuance of summons to his mother for her appearance before the Court as a witness and in the event of her failing to appear, it is open to the petitioner to take necessary coercive steps under Order XVI Rule 10 CPC. The impugned order, dismissing the application for impleadment as a party-defendant, does not therefore call for any interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd March, 2011. Tsy