THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.4334 OF 2010 21-10-2010 Between: Thota Kondaiah and others ..Petitioners Vs. Perla Mohana Rao …Respondent. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.4334 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.682 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. The revision is directed against the order dated 19.08.2010 rejecting I.A.No.1772 of 2010. The suit is filed seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 21-05-1986 purportedly executed jointly in favour of the petitioners by the defendant/respondent herein. The agreement of sale is stated to have been executed jointly in favour of the petitioners and one Thota Rama Murthy. It is the further the case of the petitioners that T.Rama Murthy had no interest in the property and had made no contribution to the purchase of it. He was only a name lender to lend comfort to the petitioners to enter into the transaction. In the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.1772 of 2010, the petitioners also pleaded that they had requested the legal representatives of Late T.Rama Murthy to come to court and testify regarding the above state of affairs but they did not cooperate. Therefore, they wanted to examine T.Rajendra Prasad son of late Rama Murthy as a court witness without examining all the legal representatives including Lakshmi Devamma-widow, another son- T.Sridhar and two daughters G.Padmavathi and K.Parvathi. The court below rejected the said application holding that the petitioners failed to establish how the proposed witness, said to be the elder son of Late Rama Murthy has knowledge about the suit transaction between the plaintiffs and defendant when he is said to be practising as an Advocate at Hyderabad; and as it appears from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent that there are strained relations between the respondent and the proposed witness. The court found no merits and accordingly rejected the application. It is the clear of the petitioners that they wish to examine T.Rajendra Prasad, said to be the son of late T.Rama Murthy, on their behalf but seek by the application I.A.No.1772 of 2010 to summon T.Rajendra Prasad as a court witness. Such an application is wholly misconceived. Under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 CPC the plaintiffs are required to submit a list of witnesses and summons to witnesses on or before such date as the court may appoint and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled. It is not apparent whether the petitioners have submitted a list of witnesses and summons in respect of other witnesses but certainly the inference is irresistible that T.Rajendra Prasad son of late Rama Murthy is not included the list of witnesses submitted by the petitioners/plaintiffs to be examined on their behalf. It is submitted that the issues were settled and the trial has commenced and the plaintiffs’ side evidence is closed and the defendant’s side evidence is to commence. In such circumstances, the petitioners must seek leave of the court for summoning a witness on their behalf. The application to summon T.Rajendra Prasad as a court witnesses is misconceived. On the aforesaid analysis, this court finds no infirmity in the order of the court below warranting revisional interference. This revision is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are however at liberty to seek the leave of the court below for summoning T.Rajendra Prasad as a plaintiffs’ witness by filing an appropriate application and satisfying the court below that there was a sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the list of witnesses furnished under Order XVI, Rule.1 CPC. No observations in the order impugned shall bar the petitioners’ right to show sufficient cause by filing fresh application for summoning the witness or to plead adequate reasons to summon such witness. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 21st OCTOBER 2010 TSNR