JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, who is the plaintiff no. 4 in Title Suit No. 26 of 2005, is aggrieved of order dated 12.04.2017 by which objection of the defendant nos. 1 to 5 to examination of the defendant no. 6 as one of the plaintiffs'' witnesses has been allowed. 2. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no bar under the Code of Civil Procedure prohibiting a plaintiff to examine an adversary, may be a defendant, in the suit as one of his witnesses. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this contention has relied on decisions in " Sri Awadh Kishore Singh and Another Vs. Sri Brij Bihari Singh and Others reported in , (1993) AIR Patna 122" and " M.C. Ananda and Another Vs. M.C. Chikkanna and Another reported in , (2001) AIR Karnataka 139" . Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that once the trial Judge permitted examination of defendant no. 6 by a conditional order dated 02.03.2017 and examination-in-chief of the defendant no. 6 was filed by the plaintiffs, the court cannot decline the plaintiffs permission to examine the defendant no. 6 as one of their witnesses. 3. Title Suit No. 26 of 2005 has been instituted by the petitioner along with six other persons who are purchasers of the suit schedule properties. They have asserted that Jamuna Kunwar widow of late Bihari Ram had valid right, title and interest over the suit schedule properties and being Class-I legal heir of Kauleshwar Ram she has rightfully transferred the suit lands in favour of the plaintiffs. Initially the said Jamuna Kunwar was not made a party in the suit, however, through an application for amendment which was allowed on 22.03.2006 the said Jamuna Kunwar has been added as defendant no. 6. At this stage it needs to be recorded that the plaint does not disclose that the said Jamuna Kunwar is a proforma-defendant. During the trial the plaintiffs intending to examine the defendant no. 6 as one of their witnesses filed her examination-in-chief. At this stage the defendant nos. 1 to 5 has raised two fold objections; neither a copy of the amended plaint nor the written statement of defendant no. 6 was made available to them and the defendant no. During the trial the plaintiffs intending to examine the defendant no. 6 as one of their witnesses filed her examination-in-chief. At this stage the defendant nos. 1 to 5 has raised two fold objections; neither a copy of the amended plaint nor the written statement of defendant no. 6 was made available to them and the defendant no. 6 cannot be examined by the plaintiffs as one of their witnesses. The trial Judge has passed the following order on 02.03.2017: 4. Subsequently, a formal objection was filed on 06.04.2017 by the defendant nos. 1 to 5, raising objection to examination of the defendant no. 6 as one of the plaintiffs'' witnesses. This application has been allowed by the trial Judge by the impugned order dated 12.04.2017. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. The Code of Civil Procedure does not create any substantive right in a party to the suit. It simply prescribes the procedure which has to be followed during trial of the suit. Order I CPC deals with parties to the suit and Order II CPC prescribes how a suit shall be framed. Order VI Rule 1 CPC defines pleading to mean plaint and written statement. Except in cases dealt with under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC there shall not be any other affidavit except the plaint and the written statement by any party to the suit. Order XIII Rule 1 CPC provides that before settlement of issues in the suit the parties or their pleader shall produce all the documentary evidence in original and Order XVI Rule 1 CPC mandates that on or before the date so appointed by the Court but not later than 15 days after the issues have been settled in the suit the parties shall produce in the Court a list of witnesses whom they proposed to call either to give evidence or to produce documents. Admittedly, defendant no. 6 is not a witness cited by the plaintiffs in their list of witnesses. 6. Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC lays down the procedure how hearing in the suit and examination of witnesses shall take place during trial of the suit. Admittedly, defendant no. 6 is not a witness cited by the plaintiffs in their list of witnesses. 6. Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC lays down the procedure how hearing in the suit and examination of witnesses shall take place during trial of the suit. Rule 1 provides that the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant he is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in that event the defendant shall have right to begin. Rule 2 provides that on the date of hearing of the suit the party having the "right to begin" shall state his case and produce his evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. When the provision under Order XVIII Rule 2 CPC is read in the context of the mandate under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC, it becomes abundantly clear that the plaintiff can examine only those witnesses who figure in the list of witnesses furnished by him under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. Under sub-rule (3) to Rule 1 of Order XVI CPC any witness other than those whose name appeared in the list of witnesses referred to under sub-rule (1), however, can be examined on showing sufficient cause and, of course, with leave of the Court. It is not the case pleaded by the petitioner that leave under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC has been obtained by them for examining defendant no. 6 as one of their witnesses. In fact, an application under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC for examining a defendant as the plaintiff''s witness is not maintainable. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the defendant no. 6 being vendor of the plaintiffs is a material witness who is bound to depose in favour of the plaintiffs is bereft of substance. If the defendant no. 6 has filed a written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiffs and thus intends to sail along with the plaintiffs, what could have rescued the situation for the plaintiffs is provision under Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC. Initially Rule 1-A CPC was not part of the Code. It has been incorporated in Order XXIII CPC through the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. Initially Rule 1-A CPC was not part of the Code. It has been incorporated in Order XXIII CPC through the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. Rule 1-A CPC contemplates a situation in which a defendant has a commonality of interest with the plaintiff and therefore to avoid embarrassment during the trial a provision has been incorporated in the Code to transpose such a defendant as a plaintiff. On their own saying if at all the defendant no. 6 supports their case, the plaintiffs have not adopted the procedure provided under Order XXIII Rule 1-A CPC. No doubt there is no absolute specific bar in the Code under which a plaintiff cannot examine a defendant as one of his witnesses, but then once the procedure prescribed under the Code is read along with the right of the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant''s witnesses, it becomes apparent that even a defendant whose written statement is not at variance with the plaintiff''s stand cannot be examined as one of the plaintiff''s witnesses. All that the plaintiff can do is to cross-examine such a defendant during the trial to elicit truth from him. The decisions in Sri Awadh Kishore Singh and M.C. Ananda have been rendered in a different fact-situation and, of course, the aforesaid provisions of the Code have not been noticed by the Court. 7. Viewed thus and for the aforesaid reasons, finding no infirmity with the impugned order dated 12.04.2017 the writ petition is dismissed.