THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2982 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order 14.07.2011 in I.A.No.186 of 2011 in R.C. No.477 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) praying to issue witness summons to one Mohd. Masood Alam, s/o. Mohd. Mahmood Alam for the purpose of giving evidence about the oral tenancy, was dismissed on the ground that as the tenancy is oral, summoning the witness is absurd and that the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings on one pretext or the other. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the main case is coming up for the evidence on the side of the petitioners herein, who are respondents therein, from 01.06.2011 and four witnesses were examined and the witness now sought to be summoned is an important witness to speak about the oral tenancy. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is absurd to summon the proposed witness because there is no such oral agreement of lease and that the quantum of rent payable is not in dispute and that only to drag on the proceedings the present petition is filed by the petitioners. 4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision in Sunder v. Mohd. Ismail & another[1], wherein it is held thus: “.. The Court while dealing with an application filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to satisfy itself that the application was a bona fide one and not a vexatious one granting of which would result in abuse of process of Court. The Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is entitled to take all the relevant facts and circumstances and if it is satisfied that the application has been filed only to protract the proceedings and the ordering of which may result in serious injustice, is entitled to dismiss the application. A plain reading of Order XVI Rule 6 does not suggest that the application is required to be ordered automatically without considering the bona fides of the application.” Even according to the above decision, it is clear that the application should be a bona fide one and not vexatious one granting of which would result in abuse of process of Court. 5. The respondent herein filed R.C. No.477 of 2008 before the Rent Controller against the petitioners herein seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the schedule mulgi. The petitioners herein have taken a specific plea in their counter filed before the Rent Controller that one Osman Shareef surrendered tenancy rights and the father of the respondents entered into oral tenancy agreement in the presence of witness on certain terms. Now, the witness sought to be summoned is one of the witnesses who was allegedly present at the time of the oral tenancy. In view of the fact that there is a specific pleading in the counter, prima facie, it appears that summoning of the witness is bona fide one. Hence, the witness can be summoned. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that on the day so fixed by the learned Rent Controller, all the witnesses, if any, including the proposed witness sought to be examined, would be examined by the petitioners herein. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller is directed to fix a date and the petitioners shall make an endeavour to examine all their witnesses, including the proposed witness now sought to be summoned after obtaining summons from the Court, on the date so fixed by the learned Rent Controller. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 20.08.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2982 OF 2011 20.08.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2982 OF 2011 DATED 20.08.2011 Between: Abdul Raheem Shareef & another …Petitioners And Rajkumar Bharatlal …Respondent [1] 2004 (3) ALT 661 (D.B.)