THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1680 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 03.03.2010, in I.A.No.84 of 2010 in O.S.No.134 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the petition, under Order XVI Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 4 requesting the Court to summon one C. Peddi Reddy as a Court witness on the ground that he is one of the attestors of the Will said to have been executed on 18.08.1990, was dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take their own steps to summon the said C. Peddi Reddy as a witness of their behalf. 2. Heard. 3. The witness to be summoned is no other than the husband of respondent No.1/plaintiff. The other attestor of the Will died about five years back. In view of the fact that the Will is a compulsorily attestable document, to prove the will, one of the attestors of the Will has to be examined in the Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition to summon husband of respondent No.1/plaintiff as Court witness to prove the Will. That petition was dismissed. 4. Order XVI Rule 1 Sub-rule (3) C.P.C. is not a matter of course, but sub-rule enables the Court after recording reasons to permit a party to call any witness whose name has not been mentioned in the list filed under sub-rule (1), if he shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the list. Though the witness sought to be summoned by the petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 4 is related to respondent No.1/plaintiff, he can as well be summoned through process of Court. Unless the case falls under Order XVI Rule 1 Sub-rule (3) C.P.C., ordinarily a witness cannot be summoned through process of Court as a Court witness. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the same. The trial Court has already given a liberty to the petitioners to take their own steps to summon the said witness as a witness on their behalf through process of Court. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 10, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1680 OF 2010 Between: P. Amala and another .....PETITIONERS AND Y.V. Nirmala and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1680 OF 2010 November 10, 2010