THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4085 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 16.07.2010, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam in E.A.No.67 of 2010 in E.P.No.42 of 2006 in O.S.No.238 of 2003, whereunder the petition filed under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to issue witness summons to the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Urban), to give his evidence was dismissed. The petitioner herein is the defendant. The respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of money on the basis of the promissory note. The plaintiff also filed an application-I.A.No.589 of 2009 under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. seeking attachment of the subject property before judgment. Initially, the same was allowed. On adjudication, decree was passed in the said suit and it attained finality. Thereafter, the said E.P. was filed for realization of the decretal amount, in which the present E.A. was filed by the defendant seeking to summon the Tahsildar of Visakhapatnam (Urban) to give his evidence. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the gift deed, dated 26.06.2000, whereunder the E.P. schedule property was gifted to the petitioner by her husband. Order XVI Rule 3 C.P.C. reads as under: “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.” From the above, it is clear that the Court, for the reasons to be recorded, can summon any witness, whose name is not shown in the list of witnesses, if the party shows sufficient cause for omission of the same in the list of witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant contended that the schedule property is an assigned land, hence under Section 3 (4) of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1997, this property cannot be sold to realize the decretal amount and that is the reason why the present petition has been filed under Order XVI Rule 1 C.P.C. The Court below in the impugned order recorded that the petitioner herself stated that her husband settled the E.P. schedule property by way of gift deed. Further more, the petitioner admitted in her evidence that E.P. schedule property is not a D-form patta land. In the teeth of the said gift deed and also in the teeth of the evidence adduced, the trial Court rightly negatived the contention of the petitioner that the E.P. schedule property is an assigned land. It is pertinent to note that in Order XVI Rule 3 C.P.C., the language employed is “the Court may for the reasons to be recorded”, which denotes that the Court has to form an opinion and exercise its discretion to determine as to whether a person who name was omitted to be shown as witness in the first instance, can be summoned by the Court or otherwise. In the instant case, the evidence of the petitioner and also the gift settlement deed, dated 26.07.2000, clearly shows that the E.P. schedule land is not an assigned land. Hence, the Court below has rightly declined to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner in the said E.A. In view of the above reasons and also having regard to the facts and circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or infirmity committed by the Court below while passing the impugned order and it has rightly exercised its discretion and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED​ 17th September 2010 dr