MC 3310/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICEI.A. ANSARI By making the present Misc. application, the applicant, who is respondent in the Election petition No. 01(AP)/2010, has sought for issuance of Summons to the wi tnesses, as many as 13 in number, on the ground that those witnesses were shown in the list of witnesses of the Election Petitioner, the Election petitioner did not, ultimately, examine the said witnesses and their examination, as Court wit nesses, is necessary for the purpose of effective adjudication of the various is sues, which have been raised in this case. Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the respondent-applicant, and Mr. S. Shyam, learned counsel for the Election petitioner-opposite party. The above application has been resisted by the Election petitioner by fi ling an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein the Election petitioner has pointed out to the effect that the officials of the postal department have confirmed, on th e basis of the official record maintained by the department concerned, that the witnesses at Sl. Nos. 18, 22, 23, 25, 31, 37, 39, 47, 49, 56, 59, 67 and 75 had never received any postal ballot through proper channel. This apart, the Return ing Officer had rejected as many as 48 postal ballots on the ground that those p ostal ballots were forged. This action of the Returning Officer was never quest ioned or challenged by the respondent- applicant. Coupled with the above, what needs to be noted is that the respondent-ap plicant did not submit list of his witnesses until the last date of examination of the Election petitioner’s witnesses and, in this list also, the witnesses, wh om the respondent, now, seeks to get examined as Court witnesses, were not named as witnesses. There is no impediment, in law, on a defendant, in a suit, to include th e name of a person, as his witness, even if such a person’s name appears as witn ess for the plaintiff in the petitioner’s list of witnesses. To prove one’s cas e is one’s own responsibility and it is for the party to decide as to whether, o ut of the witnesses, who have been mentioned in his list, whom he or she would o r would not examine. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that, for the purpose of examin ation of the said 13 witnesses, there is no foundation in the written statement of the respondent-applicant. The respondent-applicant cannot be allowed to trav el beyond his written statement and since this written statement does not make r oom for calling of any witness, who had been included in the list of witnesses o f the Election petitioner, the question of examining the said 13 witnesses or an y of them, as Court witness, does not arise, particularly, when it is for a part y concerned to prove his or her own case. There is absolutely no bar on the Cou rt, even in a civil proceeding, to examine a person as a Court witness. However , no case for examination of the said 13 witnesses as Court witnesses, in the pr esent case, can be said to have been made out by the present applicant. This ap plication is, therefore, without any merit. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the prayer for examination of the said 13 witnesses, as Court witnesses, is hereby rejected. This Misc. application stands disposed of accordingly.