ORDER : P. Sam Koshy, A.C.J. Since the issue arising in the instant Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same and the parties thereto are also same, the Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. Heard Ms.K. Gayatri, learned counsel representing Mr.S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners (defendant Nos.4, 11 & 12); and Mr. Kuldeep Jadhav, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 (plaintiff). 3. Civil Revision Petition Nos.1213 of 2025 and 1226 of 2025 are filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Common Order dated 25.03.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.64 & 65 of 2025 in O.S.No.317 of 2020 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Shadnagar (for short, ‘the impugned Common Order’) 4. Vide the impugned common order, the Trial Court allowed the above applications, viz., I.A.Nos.64 & 65 of 2025 in O.S.No.317 of 2020 and directed respondent No.2 (defendant No.1 before the trial court) to appear before the Trial court on the next date of hearing for cross-examination. 5. I.A.No.64 of 2025 in O.S.No.317 of 2020 was filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff) under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to reopen the matter for the purpose of examining the evidence of respondent No.2 (defendant No.1); and I.A.No.65 of 2025 in O.S.No.317 of 2020 was filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff) under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to issue summons to respondent No.2 (defendant No.1). 6. Initially, the suit was filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff) under Order VII Rules 1 to 7 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 08.05.2017; to declare the sale deed bearing Document No.7621 of 2017, dated 28.10.2017, as being null and void and not binding on respondent No.1 (plaintiff); and in the alternative, respondent No.1 (plaintiff) had also sought for an alternative relief with a direction to the respondents (defendants) to pay an amount of Rs.10.5 lakhs along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the agreement, i.e., 08.05.2017 to 08.11.2020, and for other reliefs. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) was set ex parte and he has, in spite of proper service, decided not to contest the case; neither respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) has filed any written statement either supporting respondent No.1 (plaintiff) nor opposed the suit filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff); the suit filed by the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) was opposed only by the petitioners (defendant Nos.4, 11 & 12) and all other respondents / defendants in the suit, viz., defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 10 have remained ex parte; the suit had proceeded in its usual course and respondent No.1 (plaintiff) was examined and documents were also marked; respondent No.1 (plaintiff) was examined by one of the contesting defendants, viz., defendant No.4 and thereafter the defendant No.4 was also examined and the matter was fixed for final arguments. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that arguments on behalf of respondent No.1 (plaintiff) were also heard by the Trial Court; it was at this juncture that the respondents have filed a petition under Section 39(1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in respect of a document being sent for an expert opinion, and the expert’s opinion was also received thereon; it was after the obtaining of the expert’s opinion that respondent No.1 (plaintiff) has filed the above two I.A.s praying the Trial Court to call upon respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) as a witness and that he may be treated as a witness on behalf of respondent No.1 (plaintiff) or as a Court witness and that summons may be issued to respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) for the that purpose. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the request for calling upon respondent No.2 as a court witness or witness on behalf of respondent No.1 (plaintiff) is totally uncalled for as the said move is nothing but to improve upon the case of respondent No.1 (plaintiff) and his evidence; therefore, the same should not be permitted; that respondent No.1 (plaintiff) has to prove his case on his own and cannot expect respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) as a witness in support of his contentions; the intention of respondent No.1 (plaintiff) in calling for respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) as a witness was also to ensure that the proceedings of the suit gets dragged on; and therefore, prayed for allowing the Revisions and setting aside of the impugned order. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (plaintiff), opposing the Revisions, contended that the presence of respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) is required to know as to whether the signatures reflected in the so-called agreement of sale which was sent for an expert’s opinion was one which was put by him or not; that respondent No.1 (plaintiff) has filed above applications calling for presence of respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) as a witness and also for reopening of the case for recording of evidence of respondent No.2 (defendant No.1); the requirement of respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) to be called as a witness is necessary to put an end to unnecessary controversies that have erupted upon the Document Ex.A.1 having been subjected to an expert’s opinion; the allowing of the above two I.A.s vide the impugned order by the Trial Court, would not cause any prejudice to any of the respondents and that respondent No.1 (plaintiff) was ready to bear whatever financial implications that may arise for calling upon respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) as a witness; and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Revisions. 11. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on a perusal of the record, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which was invoked by the Trial Court for allowance of the above two I.A.s, viz., I.A.Nos.64 and 65 in O.S.No.317 of 2020 vide the impugned common order. 12. For ready reference, Order 16 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is extracted as under, viz., : “1. 12. For ready reference, Order 16 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is extracted as under, viz., : “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 person 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 part 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 [1A. Production of witnesses without summons-. A subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 1, and party to the suit may, without applying for summons under rule 1, bring any witness to give evidence or to produce documents.]” 13. Upon perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law, what next is to be seen is the person who is requested to be called as a witness. In the instant case, the request was made by respondent No.1 (plaintiff) for calling upon respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) to appear as a witness. The respondent No.2 (defendant No.1), being a party to the suit, in spite of proper service of notice, thought it fit not to contest the case either supporting respondent No.1 (plaintiff) or opposing respondent No.1 (plaintiff). The respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) knowingly decided not to contest the case and therefore did not even care to file Written Statement in the suit. Thus, an inference has to be drawn that respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) chose not to contest the case for the reason of being in connivance with respondent No.1 (plaintiff) in the above suit. 14. The respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) knowingly decided not to contest the case and therefore did not even care to file Written Statement in the suit. Thus, an inference has to be drawn that respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) chose not to contest the case for the reason of being in connivance with respondent No.1 (plaintiff) in the above suit. 14. Another aspect which needs appreciation is that when a suit for specific performance is filed, the burden of establishing the case is exclusively upon respondent No.1 (plaintiff). Therefore, in the instant case, it cannot be expected of respondent No.1 (plaintiff) to call upon respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) to come and lead evidence in support of his contentions; if the respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) voluntarily with wide open eyes has chosen to not contest the case, a suitable inference has to be drawn, but he cannot be compelled to appear before the Trial Court to lead evidence, more particularly in the instant case, since respondent No.1 (plaintiff) wanted respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) to support his evidence. However, if respondent No.1 (plaintiff) so desires, he could have sought for cross-examination of the expert who had given an opinion in respect of the alleged document sent for expert’s opinion rather than calling upon respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) to give evidence. 15. In the case of Atul Kumar Singh vs. Nitish Kumar , [265 (2019) DLT 161] , a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi held at Paragraph Nos.29, 30, 31 and 33 as under : “29. Apart from the aforesaid judgments as relied upon by the parties, I find that a Coordinate Bench of this court in its recent opinion reported as MANU/DE/2790/2016 Symantec Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. R. Modi and Ors. had by referring to the Judgment in Amitabha Sen (supra) held that party to a litigation is not entitled to summon or examine a witness without satisfying the court of the relevance of the witness's testimony to the lis for adjudication, in other words, the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned. 30. On a reading of the above judgments relied upon by the parties, some of the factors need to be considered while considering an application of this nature, are as under: 1. 30. On a reading of the above judgments relied upon by the parties, some of the factors need to be considered while considering an application of this nature, are as under: 1. Order XVI of the code, which deals with the summoning of the witness does not bar one party from applying for the examination of the other as his witness. 2. It is not that everyone who is included in the list of witnesses is automatically summoned. 3. The Rule is if the grounds are made out for summoning of witness, he will be called not if the demand is belated, vexatious or frivolous. 4. An application for summoning of the witness should not be granted as a matter of course, but at the appropriate stage, the court can pass such order keeping the facts of the case and conduct of the contesting party in mind. 5. In an application for summoning of witness cogent reasons needs to be mentioned. In the absence of any cogent reason, the application liable to be dismissed. 6. Motives of the party should be looked into by the court while deciding the application for summoning of witness Under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC. 7. Strong evidence needs to be adduced by the party opposing an application for summoning of witness to show that it is not a bona fide and the granting of such application shall be permitting an abuse of the process of the court. 8. The summoning or examination of an opposite party of a suit must be allowed by the court only in the rarest of rare cases when it is unavoidable in the interest of justice. 31. In the facts of this case, the reasoning given by the plaintiff in the application under Order XVI Rule read with Section 151 CPC are primarily two, which have been averred in Paras 4 and 7 of the same, which I reproduce as under: 4. That the said witness has to be examined in order to bring on record further evidence with regard to the violation to authorship and authorship rights of the literary work titled as "Special Category Status: A case for Bihar", in which defendant no. 1 is the principal actor. xxx xxx xxx 7. That the said witness has to be examined in order to bring on record further evidence with regard to the violation to authorship and authorship rights of the literary work titled as "Special Category Status: A case for Bihar", in which defendant no. 1 is the principal actor. xxx xxx xxx 7. Thus, in view of the above, it is submitted that the present application be allowed as the same is bonafide and is in the interest of justice and no prejudice will be caused to the defendant if the same is allowed. However, irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the plaintiff if the same is not allowed. ... ... ... 33. From the above, it is clear that on issue no.1, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that he is the owner of the copyright. It shall be his endeavour, to prove the same. On the other hand, vide their written statements the defendants are contesting the said position. In other words, the stand of the parties is at variance. Each of the parties, shall have to enter the witness box to prove his / its case. The opposite party, shall naturally cross-examine the party in the witness box. So it follows, that the defendant no.1 coming as a witness, shall in his evidence make good the stand taken by him in his written statement. He shall not prove the case of the plaintiff. So, the reasoning of the plaintiff calling defendant no.1, as a plaintiff's witness being so called "principal actor" and a bona fide act is not convincing. In other words, the reasons are not cogent. The facts of this case shows, that it is not necessary to summon the defendant no.1 as witness of the plaintiff. Surely when the defendant no.1 appears in the witness box to prove his case, the plaintiff shall be within his right to demolish the case set up by the defendant no.1 in his pleading, and ensure, the case set up by him is proved by cross-examining the said defendant.” 16. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited , (2014) 2 S.C.C. 269 held at paragraph Nos.15, 16, 17 and 19 as under, viz., “15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited , (2014) 2 S.C.C. 269 held at paragraph Nos.15, 16, 17 and 19 as under, viz., “15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. 16. The High Court, we notice, has taken the view that once the evidence is let in by both the parties, the question of burden of proof pales into insignificance and the evidence let in by both the parties is required to be appreciated by the court in order to record its findings in respect of each of the issues that may ultimately determine the fate of the suit. The High Court has also proceeded on the basis that initial burden would always be upon the plaintiff to establish its case but if the evidence let in by defendants in support of their case probabalises the case set up by the plaintiff, such evidence cannot be ignored and kept out of consideration. 17. At the outset, let us examine the legal position with regard to whom the burden of proof lies in a suit for declaration of title and possession. This Court in Maran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira , [ AIR 1959 SC 31 ] observed that : "in a suit for declaration if the plaintiffs are to succeed, they must do so on the strength of their own title." ... ... ... 19. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.” 17. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.” 17. As regards the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (plaintiff), viz., in the cases of Mandir Shri Hanuman Murti vs. Collector Mahoday, Datia , [2016 (1) M.P.L.J. 75] ; Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. M/s.Ineos Styrolution Ltd. , 2019 LawSuit (Guj) 757 D.B. ; and Pradeep Majoj Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Duggirala Vidya Sagar Ra , [2023 SCC OnLine TS 529] there is no dispute or quarrel so far as ratio / principles of law laid down in respect of an application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 calling for summoning of an witness is concerned. However, the said decisions / judgments would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case and are distinguishable on its own facts for the simple reason that, in the instant case it was not a case of an independent witness or for that matter summoning of the expert on whose opinion the necessity for filing of I.A.Nos.64 and 65 of 2025 in O.S.No.317 of 2020 arose. Whereas, in the instant case, the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) intends to call for the respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) himself as a witness which apparently sounds illogical particularly for the reason that the respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) had chosen not to contest the case and had also decided to not file a Written Statement to the above suit filed by the respondent No.1 (plaintiff). Under the circumstances, calling for the respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) as an witness appears to be on the ground that there being some connivance between the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) and respondent No.2 (defendant No.1). 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Common Order dated 25.03.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.64 & 65 of 2025 in O.S.No.317 of 2020 by the Trial court does not seem to be proper, legal and justified. Accordingly, the impugned Common Order dated 25.03.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.64 & 65 of 2025 in O.S.No.317 of 2020 deserves to be and is accordingly set aside / quashed. The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. 19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.