HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3692 of 2011 Date: September 12, 2011 Between: B.Ilayaiah (died), B.Kanakamma (died) B.Kumaraswamy and another … Petitioners And D.Rajitha and another … Respondents Order: Aggrieved of the order dated 11.07.2011 passed in I.A.No.528 of 2011 in O.S.No.917 of 2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, this civil revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid suit was filed for declaration of title. Petitioners herein are defendants in the suit. They filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination of D.W.3 on their behalf. On the ground that D.W.3 is not turning up for cross examination, they filed I.A.No.528 of 2011 under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for issuing summons to D.W.3 for giving evidence. The Court below, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application, which gave rise to filing of this revision petition. It is well settled that a party produced as a witness on whose behalf affidavit in lieu of chief examination has been filed cannot be summoned under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC. It is not in dispute that petitioners filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination of D.W.3. Having done so, it is the duty of the petitioners to see that D.W.3 lets in evidence in the cross examination. The ground urged by the petitioners that D.W.3 is not turning up to let evidence in the cross examination in view of exerting of pressure on him by his relatives, is no ground to summon D.W.3 by issuing summons. A perusal of Order XVI Rule 1(3) of CPC demonstrates that when a party prays for summoning of a witness to the Court, then he has to assign sufficient and adequate reasons for seeking assistance of the Court for summoning the witness. It is the case of the petitioners that relatives of D.W.3 are exerting pressure on him not to give evidence in the cross examination. The Court below, examining the claim of the petitioners and finding that no valid reasons are assigned by them for seeking issuance of summons to D.W.3, rightly rejected their application. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to observe that it would always be open to the petitioners to secure the presence of D.W.3 for deposing on their behalf in the cross examination. No order as to costs. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 12, 2011 MRR