ORDER : Defendants in O.S.No.598 of 2015 filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 24.09.2019 of learned XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.632 of 2019 in O.S.No.598 of 2015. 2. By the impugned order, the petition filed under Order XVI Rule 1(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) to summon Railway Police Commissioner, Government Railway Police, Vijayawada with a direction to give evidence with regard to duty hours of Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao, P.C.No.496 from 29.07.2014 to 31.07.2014 and produce the duty register/chart and other relevant documents filed by the present petitioners was dismissed by the learned trial Court. 3. To appreciate the contentions raised in this revision, the following facts are required to be noticed : O.S.No.598 of 2015 is a suit for recovery of money filed by sole plaintiff as against two defendants based on a promissory note said to have been executed by the defendants on 30.07.2014 whereunder the defendants allegedly borrowed Rs.12,20,000/-and executed the said promissory note at Reddipalem Village. There was the evidence of PW.1/plaintiff PW.2 and PW.3 recorded in support of the case of plaintiff. Thereafter defendants’ side evidence commenced and DW.1 testified. It was at that stage, defendants filed the said application for summoning the documents and the witness. In the application filed before the learned trial Court in I.A.No.632 of 2019 in O.S.No.598 of 2015 the defendants explained the relevance of the proposed documents and the evidence of the proposed witness in the following terms: It is stated that according to the evidence of plaintiff as PW.1 and the evidence of attestor and the scribe as PWs.2 and 3, when the disputed pronote transaction took place Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao, who is the husband of the plaintiff, was also present. The defendants have been contending that there was no alleged debt transaction and the pronote was not executed. That the defendants obtained the relevant information that on the relevant date, namely, 30.07.2014 Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao was on duty elsewhere and he could not have been present to witness the alleged transaction and on those aspects they required the proposed documents and the evidence of the witness and therefore, the petition. Plaintiff filed a counter challenging the maintainability of the petition. Plaintiff filed a counter challenging the maintainability of the petition. Learned XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam on considering the material on record and the submissions made by both sides dismissed the petition stating that Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao is neither a party to the suit nor a party to the disputed document and therefore proving his presence or absence at the time of the suit disputed pronote transaction is totally inconsequential and immaterial and he further noted that high ranked public official should not be summoned unless their presence is absolutely necessary as held by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner v. M.Ramakrishna, 2012 (5) ALT 210 . It is on these grounds, the learned trial Court dismissed the petition. 4. In challenge to the said order, Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel for revision petitioners submits that through the process provided under the Right to Information Act they obtained the copies of duty register and found Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao was on duty elsewhere and was not present at Reddipalem where the alleged pronote transaction took place and given that fact if evidence of the proposed witness and documents are produced they would falsify the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 who said that Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao was also present at the time of suit pronote transaction. Learned trial Court failed to consider these essential aspects and on erroneous reasons it dismissed the petition. Learned counsel further submits that refusal to call the proposed witness on the ground that he is high ranked public official is incorrect. Contending that the impugned order occasioned injustice, learned counsel seeks to set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioners to have the proposed evidence summoned and adduced. 5. As against it, Sri M.S.Bhanu Prasada Rao, the learned counsel representing Sri V.Hemanth Kumar, the learned counsel for respondent submits that the petitioners intended to adduce irrelevant evidence and the learned trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction and there is nothing to interfere with it. 6. Point that falls for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order occasioned injustice as it is in violation of law?” POINT: 7. The principal question before the trial Court in O.S.No.598 of 2015 was whether on 30.07.2014 at Reddipalem defendants borrowed money and executed the suit disputed pronote or not. 6. Point that falls for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order occasioned injustice as it is in violation of law?” POINT: 7. The principal question before the trial Court in O.S.No.598 of 2015 was whether on 30.07.2014 at Reddipalem defendants borrowed money and executed the suit disputed pronote or not. It is undisputed that relevant evidence in this regard was adduced as plaintiff testified and also got examined an attestor and a scribe to the disputed promissory note. The observation of the learned trial Court that the proposed evidence about Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao is irrelevant since he is not a party to the suit and is not a party to the negotiable instrument as he is neither creditor nor borrower nor an attestor nor scribe is correct as a matter of fact. It is also undisputed that Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao did not testify before the trial Court as one of the witnesses. It is in this factual backdrop, the contention of the defendants/revision petitioners is that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 that Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao was also present at the time of suit disputed pronote transaction is false and therefore, they intended to adduce the evidence to show that Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao was not present. The evidence of PW.1 is made part of the record by the petitioners. A perusal of examination-in-chief of PW.1/plaintiff does not indicate any whisper about presence of her husband Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao at the time of this pronote transaction. The defendants questioned her in cross-examination during which time she disclosed that her husband was also there with her and witnessed the transaction. The dispute in the suit is not about presence or absence of Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao or Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao witnessing any transaction. The principal question before the trial Court is about execution or otherwise of the promissory note by the defendants. Now by the proposed evidence defendants wanted to show what PWs.1 to 3 were telling about presence of Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao is false. Thus, it is to shake credibility of their evidence with reference to a collateral fact the proposed evidence is sought for. For two important reasons such an endeavour on part of defendants cannot be countenanced at law. Thus, it is to shake credibility of their evidence with reference to a collateral fact the proposed evidence is sought for. For two important reasons such an endeavour on part of defendants cannot be countenanced at law. A perusal of cross-examination of PW.1 does not indicate any suggestion from the defendants to PW.1 about absence of Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao at the time of pronote transaction. It is at their behest PW.1 disclosed about presence of her husband but that was never challenged by the defendants during the course of cross-examination. Thus, that part of the evidence which was never challenged is now sought to be challenged. In this regard, one may notice Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is extracted here for benefit: “153. Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing veracity: ––When a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but, if he answers falsely, he may after wards be charged with giving false evidence. Exception 1:–– If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction. Exception 2:–– If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his impartiality, and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be contradicted.” 8. The above provision makes it clear that this rule limiting the right to call evidence to contradict a witness on collateral issues and it excludes all evidence of facts which are incapable of affording any reasonable presumption or inference as to the principal matter in dispute. In Vijayan @ Vijayakumar v. State, (1999) 4 SCC 36 and in State of Karnataka v. K.Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, though in the context of criminal cases that were there before their Lordships, explained the importance of this rule. In the case at hand, the proposed evidence would not throw light on the principal issue at dispute before the trial Court. It is only to shake the credibility of witnesses with reference to presence or absence of another person at the time of transaction. In the case at hand, the proposed evidence would not throw light on the principal issue at dispute before the trial Court. It is only to shake the credibility of witnesses with reference to presence or absence of another person at the time of transaction. The presence or absence of Sri Reddipalli Govinda Rao is not subject matter of any facts at issue. It is to be stated that if Reddipalli Govinda Rao testified at trial stating that he was present and witnessed the suit disputed promissory note transaction then the proposed evidence would be admissible since it sought to not only impeach the credibility of a witness but also improbablises the truth of what he would have spoken on the material issue. That is not the case here. Viewed from that angle, the observation of the learned trial judge that the proposed evidence is immaterial and inconsequential to decide the issue before him in the suit is perfectly in accordance with law. Therefore, there is nothing for this Court to interfere with such well reasoned order. 9. Learned counsel for petitioners cited Rajendra Mohanlal Rathi v. Shyamabai, 2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 752. In that case it was held that for deciding real controversy between parties if summons to a witness is sought for, Court is required to accede to it. Thus, the emphasis of the ruling is about necessity of proposed evidence is dependent on the facts to be spoken to decide the real controversy between parties and nothing else. As stated earlier in the case at hand, the proposed evidence would not help in deciding the real controversy between parties. Therefore, this ruling does not assist the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners cited Gurjit Singh v. Kartar Singh, 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 783. That was a case where the trial Court refused to summon the witness since the proposed witness was not cited in the list of witnesses. Explaining the various provisions contained in Order XVI C.P.C. the Court held that even if a witness was not cited in the list of witnesses, the assistance of the Court to secure summons to a witness is made available to the party by the Code of Civil Procedure. Explaining the various provisions contained in Order XVI C.P.C. the Court held that even if a witness was not cited in the list of witnesses, the assistance of the Court to secure summons to a witness is made available to the party by the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, the application was not dismissed on the ground that the name of this witness was not there in the list of witnesses and therefore, this ruling does not assist the petitioners. 11. In the light of what is stated above, this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit in this petition. Point is answered against the petitioners. 12. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.