JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved of the order dated 28.8.2008 in Suit No.29/2001 (30/2007) Dhanne Singh v. Gram Panchayat and others pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Churu. 2. By the impugned order dated 28.8.2008, the learned trial court deleted the name of Shri Vijendra Singh, Advocate from the list of witnesses produced by the plaintiff in support of his case in the said suit. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff relying upon the provisions of Sections 30, 31 and Order 16 Rule 10 and 12 and judgment of this court in case of Smt. Uchhab Kanwar wife of Shri Bhanwar Singh v. LRs of Shri Rameshwaroop Singh son of Ganesh Lal Ahuja and two Others-RLW 1995(1) (Raj.) 106 submitted that the said witness Vijendra Singh was served with summon after such list of witnesses was filed by the plaintiff and after service of summon, a copy of which is produced as Annexure 4 with the writ petition, he could not claim any privilege or right to be excluded from the said list of witnesses and it is not open to the learned trial court itself to delete him from the list of witness once the summons have been issued in accordance with the rules and have been served upon him. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bharat Shrimali with Mr. Shambhoo Singh submits that once an application in this regard was rejected by the learned trial Court on 18.3.2006 vide Annexure R-3/2 order of the learned trial court in which the said Vijendra Singh, Advocate claimed that he could not be asked to withdraw himself from the said brief as a lawyer, therefore, later on the learned trial court was justified in deleting him from the list of witnesses even though the summons were served upon him. 5. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the provisions of law and judgment of this Court, this Court is at loss to understand how the learned trial court could delete the said person Vijendra Singh even though summons were issued and served by the Court on the said witness merely because the said person was a practicing Advocate. 5. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the provisions of law and judgment of this Court, this Court is at loss to understand how the learned trial court could delete the said person Vijendra Singh even though summons were issued and served by the Court on the said witness merely because the said person was a practicing Advocate. There is no such law or provision in the Civil Procedure Code or Advocates Act or anywhere else which provides any such immunity or privilege to any Advocate to appear in the Court as a witness. On the contrary, the Advocates stand on a higher pedestal of moral ethics and are supposed to follow the provisions of law more meticulously and punctually and show more respect for the Court summons than the ordinary persons. In the present case, the stand taken by the said person Vijendra Signh, Advocate is simply unpalatable to this Court. He should have refused to indulge in such tactics while practicing in the same Court. 6. This Court is not directing any disciplinary action against such person only on account of sense of restraint. 7. With these observations, the impugned order dated 28.8.2008 is set aside and the learned trial court is directed to proceed further. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******