IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH (9th) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3330 of 2010 Between: K. Malla Reddy & 3 others … Petitioners And: D Srinivas Prasad Reddy & 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3330 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 15.07.2010 in IA SR No.3016 of 2010 in OS No.861 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, R R District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 read with Section 151 CPC, to summon the 2nd respondent as Court witness for the purpose of marking the deposition in CC No.473 of 2004 on the file of XI Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, was rejected at the threshold stage. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/D.1, D.2, D.4 and D.6. None appeared for the first respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction and alternatively for recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property on the ground that he purchased the same from the 2nd respondent for valuable consideration. The petitioners are disputing the same. During trial, the evidence of both sides was recorded and the matter stood posted for arguments. At this stage, the petitioners herein filed IA SR No.3016 of 2010 seeking issuance of summons to the 2nd respondent, who remained ex-parte in the suit, to examine him as a witness and confronting with his deposition in CC No.473 of 2004, which was filed by the 2nd respondent against the first petitioner and another before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent herein made certain vital admission in the course of evidence in CC No.473 of 2004 and the 2nd respondent could not be confronted with the same, as he remained ex-parte in the suit. Therefore, the petitioners filed application for direction to the 2nd respondent to appear as a Court witness. 4. The learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioners have not filed any list of witnesses, whose evidence they desired to adduce and also failed to show that he is a witness to unfold the case of the defendant. In the affidavit, the petitioners have stated that the circumstances under which the 2nd respondent was proposed to examine as a Court witness. The question as to whether or not the 2nd respondent is required to be called as a Court witness is a matter to be considered on merits by the trial Court after giving an opportunity to other side to file a counter. The rejection of the application at the threshold stage itself on the ground that the list of witnesses is not filed is unjustified, especially, on the strength of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application. 5. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the trial Court is therefore directed to register the I.A. and give an opportunity to other side to file counter and pass appropriate orders on the said IA on merits, without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made herein, before proceeding with the matter. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.02.2011 Note: Issue CC in 3 days (BO) bss