HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5770 OF 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S. No.7 of 2004 in the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, against one Mandlyam Eramma, deceased 1st petitioner herein for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 12-07-2003. After the suit was filed, Mandlyam Eramma died. Therefore, her legal representatives, petitioners 2 to 4, are brought on record. The trial of the suit is under progress. The respondents filed I.A. No.260 of 2010 under Rule – 14 of Order – XVI CPC with a prayer to summon one Sri Eswarappa, husband of the 2nd petitioner herein, as a Court witness. It was pleaded that Eswarappa is figured as one of the attestors / witness to agreement of sale and that his evidence is necessary. The application was opposed by the petitioners. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 16-11-2010. Hence, this revision. 2. Heard Sri R.V. Nagabhushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice is served upon the respondent through his counsel in the trial Court, he has not chosen to enter appearance. 3. Order – XVI prescribes the procedure for summoning the witnesses. Normally, the list of witnesses is to be supplied by the parties to the suit before commencement of the trial. In case, they want to take summons to any persons to appear as witness, an application is to be made under Rule – 1 of Order – XVI. 4. Rule – 14 of Order – XVI empowers the Court to summon persons other than parties to the suit as witnesses, in case, it feels that the evidence of such witness is essential. The question of one of the parties requiring the Court to summon an individual as a Court witness does not arise. I n LINGAMDINNE RAMA REDDY v. VONGOLE VENKATARAMI REDDY[1], this Court has taken the view that no third party can be summoned as a witness of the Court, unless the Court itself feels the necessity. 5. In the instant case, the respondent wanted the trial Court to summon the husband of the 2nd petitioner to figure as a witness. In a way, he wanted the Court to help him in establishing his case. 6. The respondent ought not to have filed the application for summoning an individual as a Court witness. Further, the trial Court in its order did not express the view that it also feels the necessity of summoning the said person. It is rather unfortunate that the suit itself is treated as the one for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note. 7. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J January 29, 2011. KTL [1] 2009 (4) ALD 560