ORDER Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 08-11-2012 passed in I.A. No. 2262 of 2012 in O.P. No. 686 of 2009 by the learned District Judge, Anantapur, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioners to examine respondent No. 1 as a Court Witness was dismissed. The petitioners herein are the claimants who filed the aforesaid O.P. against the respondents seeking payment of compensation of ` 20,00,000/- on account of the death of one J. Jagannath, father of the 1st petitioner and the husband of the 2nd petitioner in a motor vehicle accident. The evidence was completed and the matter was at the stage of arguments. At that stage, the petitioners filed two applications before the trial Court; one to reopen their evidence and the other to examine the 1st respondent who is the owner of one of the offending vehicles as the Court Witness. The trial Court dismissed both the applications. 2. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial Court insofar as rejecting the request of the petitioners to examine the 1st respondent as Court Witness, the present revision is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the 1st respondent is the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling at the time of accident, he is the only person who can unfold as to how the accident had occurred and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have accepted the request of the petitioners to examine him as Court Witness. 4. A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the trial Court set the 1st respondent ex parte on 28-12-2009 and after the issues were framed and the trial commenced, the 1st respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte order and the same was dismissed on 13-06-2012. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent preferred C.R.P. No. 3295 of 2012 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 25-07-2012, however, giving liberty to him to participate in the subsequent proceedings. Accordingly, the 1st respondent was permitted to participate in the subsequent proceedings. 5. In my considered opinion, even though the 1st respondent was permitted to participate in the subsequent proceedings, the trial Court ought to have accepted the request of the petitioners to examine him as Court Witness. Accordingly, the 1st respondent was permitted to participate in the subsequent proceedings. 5. In my considered opinion, even though the 1st respondent was permitted to participate in the subsequent proceedings, the trial Court ought to have accepted the request of the petitioners to examine him as Court Witness. The Court has ample power to examine him as a witness of the Court and since he is the only person who can depose as to the manner in which the accident had occurred, the trial Court ought to have examined him as a Court Witness. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. Consequently, I.A. No. 2262 of 2012 stands allowed directing the learned District Judge, Anantapur to examine the 1st respondent as a Court Witness. However, since the O.P. is pending for a long time, I direct the learned District Judge to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed.