HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.R.P. No. 2823 of 2010 O R D E R: The revision petitioner/defendant filed petition in the lower court under Order XVI Rule- 14 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to summon a witness by name Chandramohan as court witness; and his request was rejected by the lower court. 2. The suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money basing on promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant in his favour after receiving consideration mentioned therein. The defendant/petitioner contended that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and did not execute the promissory note in his favour and that he is a subscriber of private chits being run by Chandramohan, who is brother of the plaintiff and that in that connection, Chandramohan obtained his signatures on a blank promissory note, which was utilised by the plaintiff to prepare the suit pronote. Trial of the suit is completed in the lower court. When the matter was being posted for arguments, the defendant filed the present petition in the lower court. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that Chandramohan is a material witness for the suit and that his examination will prove his defence and that Chandramohan is not co-operating with the defendant to give evidence. If Chandra Mohan is not co-operating with the defendant to come and depose as his witness, then Chandramohan will also not co- operate with the defendant, even if he is examined as court witness. To show complicity of Chandramohan in the subject matter of the suit, the petitioner/defendant has no basis. Except certain rough receipts said to have been issued by or on behalf of Chandra Mohan, there is no foundation with the defendant to show that Chandramohan is having unregistered and private chit fund business in which the defendant was a subscriber. It is evident that at fag end of trial, the defendant wanted the lower Court to make a roaming enquiry into the defence of the defendant in the suit. In the circumstances, the lower court rightly negatived prayer of the petitioner to examine Chandramohan as court witness. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the lower court. 4. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt: 10-12-2010 Mjl/*