Short Note : In the trial Court on 14-7-1970 an application was submitted on behalf of the appellant that one Madhulal who was present in the Court, the plaintiff appellant wanted to examine him as a witness and the learned Judge rejected this prayer on the ground that the name of this witness was not included in the list. The Additional District Judge had confirmed the same. Held : It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that under Order 18, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court could not refuse to examine the witness. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the appellant did not explain as to why this witness was relevant. But unfortunately the learned Court below has not refused to examine this witness on this ground. The only ground on which the learned Judge has rejected the prayer of the appellant was that this witness was not listed earlier. Apparently on such a reason the Court below could not refuse to examine the witness. The Court below had no option but to examine the witness who was kept present and for whose examination an application was submitted by the plaintiff-appellant. Appeal allowed.