IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) 19.02.2010 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISON PETITION NO. 2683 OF 2007 Between: Matta Sreekanth S/o Ramakrishna, 37 years ..... PETITIONER AND M/s Vizagpatam Diocesan Corporation, represented by father CG Joseph, aged 39 years, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-2 .....RESPONDENT ORDER: This matter is being adjourned from time to time so as to give the petitioner’s counsel an opportunity to make his submissions. Even then, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is failed to assist the Court by making his submissions. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pressed for hearing and disposal of the matter. Hence, the matter is taken up for disposal. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No. 178 of 2007 in O.S.No. 3314 of 2004 dated 23.4.2007 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Plaintiff is the tenant and she is apprehending that she may be evicted from the premises without following the due process of law pending disposal of the suit. I.A No. 178 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC to issue summons to six witnesses altogether to examine on his behalf. The Court below allowed the application in part by giving liberty to summon Smt.P.Maheswari Advocate, as a witness on his behalf on payment of batta. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “ Therefore this court is of considered view that only to procrastinate the matter and to take further time with regard to income tax and property tax aspects of the defendant is only to further dodge the matter which cannot be considered and even on relevancy aspect when the petitioner approached the court with specific relief then it is his bounden duty to enlighten the court on the points urged by him. The other four persons referred to by the petitioner are undoubtedly tenants of the defendant and the 5th witness is the Municipal Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. This Court did not see any valid reasons to summon them and to examine on behalf of the petitioner and even if they are examined, then also the petitioner is not going to enlighten the court on any other aspects because in his cross examination as PW-1 clearly and fairly admitted about his relationship with the defendant and also about the issuance of the quit notice. However, there is a specific denial by DW-1 about the alleged notice issued by Smt Maheswari, Advocate through respondent/defendant counsel to the plaintiff. The petitioner is at liberty to enlighten the court on that aspect. For that reason this Court is of considered view that the contention of the petitioner can be accepted when the nexus is explained and the reason for examination of other witness is not explained properly. So the point for determination is answered in part in favour of the petitioner.” The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the Court below has rightly exercised its discretion and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the court below. As seen from the record, pending adjudication of the matter I.A was filed by the petitioner herein under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC and the point for determination is answered in part in favour of the petitioner by the Court below. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. For ready reference Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC reads as under: “1. List of witnesses and summons to witness:- (1) on or before such date as the Court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witness whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court. 2. A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. 3. The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. 4. Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), summonses referred to in this rule may be obtained by the parties on an application to the Court or to such officer as may be appointed by the Court in this behalf (within five days of presenting the list of witnesses under sub-rule (1))”. As seen from the above, the Court below has rightly exercised its discretion by ordering the application in part subject to summoning of P. Maheswari, Advocate as witness on behalf of respondent- defendant on payment of batta and with regard to other witnesses, the petition stands dismissed. In the circumstances, we see no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Dt. 19.02.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD Copies