Judgment : The respondent herein filed O.S.No.50 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, against the petitioner herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-. The petitioner filed written statement and the trial Court framed the issues. The trial of the suit commenced, and during the course of his evidence as PW.1, the respondent filed a document marked as Ex.A.1. One person, by name Neelam Pulla Reddy, figured as attest or of Ex.A.1. The respondent proposed to examine Pulla Reddy as PW.2, and in fact, an affidavit in lieu of chief examination was also filed by the witness. However, suspecting bona fides of the said witness and alleging that Pulla Reddy colluded with the petitioner, the respondent filed a memo, before the trial Court, with a prayer to eschew the evidence of that witness. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1165 of 2007, with a prayer to summon the said Pulla Reddy for being cross-examined by him. The respondent opposed the application. Through its order, dated 11.12.2007, the trial Court dismissed the application. Hence, this revision. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial Court did not furnish any reasons, in support of its conclusions and that the application was dismissed through a laconic order. He contends that, once the respondent has cited an individual as a witness and filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, it was competent for the Court to summon that witness. Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on other hand, submits that it is always for the plaintiff or the defendant in a suit to choose the witnesses, whom they propose to examine, and one party cannot compel the opposite party, to arrange for the evidence of a named person. He further submits that the trial Court arrived at a proper conclusion and the mere failure to furnish reasons, that too, in an application of this nature, does not vitiate the proceedings. The suit filed by the respondent is for recovery of amount. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issues and the recording of evidence commenced. During the course of his evidence as PW.1, the respondent filed a document marked as Ex.A.1, which is said to be promissory note. A person, by name, Neelam Pulla Reddy, figured as an attesting witness. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issues and the recording of evidence commenced. During the course of his evidence as PW.1, the respondent filed a document marked as Ex.A.1, which is said to be promissory note. A person, by name, Neelam Pulla Reddy, figured as an attesting witness. In fact, the respondent arranged for the evidence of that witness and the affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination was also filed. The respondent filed a memo before the Court, with a prayer to eschew the affidavit, filed in lieu of chief-examination of PW.2 i.e. Pulla Reddy. The trial Court appears to have acceded to the request. The petitioner wanted to cross-examine that very witness. Be it under the relevant provisions of C.P.C., or the Evidence Act, it is always for a party to examine the witness of his choice, in support of his case. Even where the name of an individual figures in the list of witnesses, the party has a liberty to give up any person so included in the list. It is not uncommon that an individual, who offers to support a plea, may turn out to be otherwise, for variety of reasons; and the party, who intended to cite him as a witness, may in fact, change his mind. In case the respondent did not examine a person, who attested Ex.A.1, it is for him to face consequences, that flow out of it. The petitioner cannot compel the Court to summon an individual as a witness cited by the respondent. Things would have been different altogether, had the petitioner intended to examine the said Pulla Reddy, as his witness. For that purpose, he has to wait till his turn comes. The evidence of the respondent herein is yet to be closed. An attempt is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the effort of his client was to secure the presence of Pulla Reddy, as Court witness. As the very expression connotes, the 'Court witness' is the one whom the Court intends to examine on its own accord. No party can insist on the Court to summon any individual as a Court witness. It is true that the trial Court did not assign reasons in support of its conclusions. Howsoever meritorious a conclusion arrived at by a Judge may be, it becomes incomplete unless supplemented by reasons. No party can insist on the Court to summon any individual as a Court witness. It is true that the trial Court did not assign reasons in support of its conclusions. Howsoever meritorious a conclusion arrived at by a Judge may be, it becomes incomplete unless supplemented by reasons. The trial Court passed a very laconic order, without stating any reasons. Though the order is incomplete, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, having regard to the limited nature and scope of the application filed by the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.