THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.1921, 2179 & 2189 of 2010 Date : 31-12-2010 Between : Pinninti Parvathamma .. Petitioner And Potunuru Musalayya and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.Venkata Rao Counsel for respondents : Sri P.Veera Reddy The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of single suit. Therefore they are being heard and disposed of together. The parties are common to all these Civil Revision Petitions. I have heard Sri K.Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the suit O.S.No.85/2007 for specific performance of agreement of sale against the respondents. After completion of the pleadings, the parties have gone to trial wherein the petitioner/plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and examined one of the witnesses to the suit agreement as PW-2. Evidently, PW-2 has not deposed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. After completion of the trial and commencement of the arguments, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.721/2009 to recall PW-2 and declare him as hostile witness to enable the petitioner to cross-examine him. The petitioner also filed two other I.As. – I.A.No.722/2009 for summoning and examining the attesting witnesses as court witnesses and I.A.No.723/2009 for examining defendant No.1 as a court witness. These three I.As. having been dismissed, the pf filed these revision petitions. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below has committed error in dismissing all the three I.As. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents has sought to support the orders of the court below. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the court below are not liable for interference. As regards I.A.No.721/2009, the procedure of summoning and declaring the witnesses as hostile is alien to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning the criminal trials, cannot be imported into civil disputes. Therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the said I.A. With regard to I.A.No.722/2009, the same was filed at a far too belated stage after completion of trial and commencement of the arguments. Apart from that, the witnesses who were sought to be summoned by the petitioner are none other than the attesting witnesses to his own document. If the petitioner seeks to substantiate his case by adducing their evidence, it is for him to secure their presence and examine them. As far as I.A.No.723/2009 is concerned, defendant No.2 filed written statement on behalf of himself and also on behalf of defendant No.1 apart from examining himself as DW-1. Therefore, the necessity of defendant No.1 being summoned as a court witness would not arise. On a careful consideration of the facts of the case and the reasons given by the court below for rejecting all these three I.As., I am of the view that the petitioner has miserably failed to make out any case for interference of this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date: 31-12-2010 AM