JUDGMENT :- 1. The present civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order of the learned District Munsif, Kangayam dated 24.6.2011 made in I.A.No.336 of 2011 in O.S.No.331 of 2005. 2. The 10th defendant in the above referred suit is the petitioner, the plaintiff thereon is the first respondent and the other defendants are the other respondents. 3. In a suit filed by the first respondent herein against the petitioner and other respondents for partition and separate possession, the petitioner herein has filed an application to strike out the evidence of D.W.4 viz, the proof affidavit filed by him. The reason being that he has been arrayed as second defendant in the said suit and since he has remained exparte, he cannot be treated as a witness and examined as D.W.4. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that Order 17 Rule 1 C.P.C. prohibits the same. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it would be more appropriate to extract Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C. which is extracted here under:- "1. List of witnesses and summons to witnesses:- (1) 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, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court. (2) A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. (3) 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. (3) 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. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), summonses referred to in this rule may be obtained by the parties on an application to the Court or to such officer as may be appointed by the Court in this behalf within five days of presenting the list of witnesses under sub-rule (1)." By citing the said provision, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that a party desirous of obtaining any summons for attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which such witness is proposed to be summoned. The second defendant who is said to be examined as D.W.4, has not been summoned by the other defendants or the plaintiff on an application. Without any summons, proof affidavit has been filed to examine him as D.W.4. 5. However, I am of the considered view that if the case of the petitioner was that he is acting detrimental to his case, one can understand that there could be an objection on the side of the petitioner to examine the second defendant as D.W.4 especially when he has remained exparte. In the affidavit in support of the application, the petitioner has not stated about the same. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner is usefully extracted here under:- "TAMIL" 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in 2005 (5) CTC 773 - Minor Arumugam @ Logesh and another vs. State Bank of India, Karur Road, rep. by its Chief Manager and others. In order to substantiate his case that a party desirous of summoning a witness, shall seek the permission of the Court, paragraph 10 of the order made thereunder was emphasised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which is usefully extracted here under:- "10. Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. gives guideline to the Court, how the witnesses should be summoned for their attendance to give evidence. Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. gives guideline to the Court, how the witnesses should be summoned for their attendance to give evidence. Sub-Rule 2 to Rule 1 of Order 16, C.P.C. Reads: "A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned." The rule does not say, it is an automatic or for mere asking, without reason and it is evident, that there must be a reason, not only from the reading of sub-rule (2), but also by the reading of sub-rule 3. In sub-rule 2, when the party applies to the Court, he must state 'the purpose' for which the witnesses are proposed to be summoned or examined. If reasons are assigned, then it is the duty of the Court, for the reasons to be recorded, to permit the application to call the witnesses either by summoning through Court or otherwise, thereby making it clear that a party desirous of obtaining any summons, for the attendance of any person which should include a party to the suit, also should assign reasons viz., the purpose. If the purpose is not stated, then the Court is competent to deny the demand, refuse to issue summons, which cannot be questioned. In this context, we have to see, what is purpose of summoning defendants 2 and 3 by defendants 4 and 5." 7. However, in the very same judgment, the learned Judge of this Court has held that the purpose of summoning contemplated under Order 16, Rule 1(2) C.P.C. was absolutely absent in that case and the revision petitioner thereon cannot claim that the Court should have issued summons to the co-defendants, for their examination on their side or otherwise. Paragraph 11 of the order made thereunder is usefully extracted here under:- "11. As said above and as rightly urged on behalf of the respondents, the revisions petitioners have not made any counter claim against any of the defendants including the plaintiff. It seems, there is no conflict of interest between the defendants also. The fight is between the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3. It is not the case of the revision petitioners that against their interest, defendants 2 and 3 are acting, in collusion with the plaintiff. It seems, there is no conflict of interest between the defendants also. The fight is between the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3. It is not the case of the revision petitioners that against their interest, defendants 2 and 3 are acting, in collusion with the plaintiff. Therefore, nothing could be extracted or elicited from defendants 2 and 3, by the examination by the revision petitioners. Thus, the purpose of summoning contemplated under Order 16, Rule 1(2), C.P.C. is absolutely absent in this case and in this view, as of right, the revision petitioners cannot claim, that the Court should have issued summons to the co-defendants, for their examination on their side or otherwise." Even in the case on hand, as stated already, the petitioner has not pleaded in the affidavit in support of his application to strike out the evidence of D.W.4 that D.W.4 is acting against his interest by colluding with other defendants and plaintiff. 8. Yet another reason that has been assigned by the learned trial Judge was that the petitioner has not raised any objection on filing of the proof affidavit. When a copy of the proof affidavit was served on the counsel, who has appeared for the petitioner herein before the Court below, he has merely made an endorsement that "received copy" without any objection. 9. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the order of the Court below does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. In fine, the order of the learned District Munsif, Kangayam dated 24.6.2011 made in I.A.No.336 of 2011 in O.S.No.331 of 2005 is confirmed and the civil revision petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.