( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed challenging the order and decree dated 8-7-2002 passed by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil judge, Rangareddy District in I. A. No. 490/ 2002 in O. S-No. 151/1997. By the impugned order, the court below dismissed the petition filed by the defendant No. l under Order 3 rule 1 C. P. C. to summon the second plaintiff for cross-examination. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the 1st defendant in the suit, filed this revision petition.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the plaintiffs filed two suits in O. S. Nos. 151 and 152 of 1997 for specific performance of the agreements. In both the suits, the 1st defendant filed I. A. Nos. 974 and 975 of 1998 respectively to direct the personal appearance of the 2nd plaintiff for the purpose of oral examination and signature. The affidavit filed in support of the present la. discloses that the defendants expressed an apprehension that 2nd plaintiff was not all in existence and she is a fictitious person. When the said I. As. were dismissed by the court below, the 1st defendant filed revision before this Court in C. R. P. Nos. 4975 and 4974 of 1998 and the same were allowed by this Court with a direction to issue summons to the 2nd plaintiff for the purpose mentioned in the petitions filed by the 1st defendant. However, the 2nd plaintiff in O. S. No. 152/1997 got herself examined as P. W. 2 and she was also effectively cross-examined by the defendants, there is no further cause of action in the said suit.

( 3 ) COMING to the present LA. as per the directions of this Court in the revision petition, after the second plaintiff attended the court in person, the court treated her as court witness and examined her. The grievance of the 1st defendant is that the court treated the 2nd plaintiff as court witness and examined her but no opportunity was given to him to cross-examine her.

( 4 ) IN view of the above, the question that falls for consideration is when a person is summoned by the court to appear in person, exercising its jurisdiction under Order 3 rule 1 C. P. C. and when that person appears and thereafter if the court examined him, whether affording opportunity to the other party to cross-examine such witness is sine qua non or not?

( 5 ) THE apprehension expressed by the 1st defendant is only with regard to the identity and entity of the 2nd plaintiff. In other words his contention is that the 2nd plaintiff is a fictitious person and as such he filed present LA. under Order 3 Rule 1 C. P. C,

( 6 ) IT is not necessary to go into Order 3 rule 1 C. P. C. , inasmuch as the 2nd plaintiff was summoned by the court in compliance with the directions of the Court. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the 2nd plaintiff should not have been examined as court witness. However, he is complacent with the procedure adopted by the court in summoning the 2nd plaintiff. But his whole grievance is that the 1st defendant was not given opportunity to cross-examine the 2nd plaintiff while she was being examined by the Court. He further submits that unless an opportunity is given, it is difficult to disprove the identity of the 2nd plaintiff. In support of his contention he heavily relied on Order 10 Rules 2 and 4 C. P. C. They are extracted as under for better appreciation: 2. Oral examination of party, or companion of party,- (1) At the first hearing of the suit, the Court- (a) shall, with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the suit, examine orally such of the parties to the suit appearing in person or present in Court, as it deems fit; and (b) may orally examine any person, able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom any party appearing in person or present in Court or his pleader is accompanied. (2) At any subsequent hearing, the court may orally examine any party appearing in person or present in court, or any person, able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom such pa