THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.6342 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order, dated 30.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.990 of 2009 in O.S.No.179 of 2006 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S.No.179 of 2006 filed for specific performance of the contract and damages, costs etc. In the said suit, they filed I.A.No.990 of 2009 under Order XVI Rule 1(2) CPC seeking to issue witness summons to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, SIB Branch, Aditya complex, Seethammapeta Main Road, Rajendranagar, Visakhapatnam. The trial Court, on appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the said I.A holding that the petitioners have not filed list of witnesses before the Court and that before seeking issuance of summons to the said witness, they have to obtain permission of the Court, which was not done in this case. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the plaintiff intentionally withheld the accounts and income tax returns and therefore, it is essential and necessary to summon the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, to cause production of the documents. 5. It is, no doubt, true that in a suit for specific performance, it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case as to whether the alleged agreement is genuine or not and to prove that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As per Rule 1(3) of Order XVI CPC, if the petitioners want to examine a person not named in the list of witnesses, they have to obtain permission of the Court. But in this case the petitioners have not filed the list of witnesses as rightly observed by the trial Court. At this juncture, there is no justification in summoning the Bank Manager to produce the alleged bank accounts and income tax returns. Therefore, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 6. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:29.01.2010. sj