1. The plaintiff, who is the petitioner, applied before the lower court to issue notice to the advocate of defendants 9 and 10, the respondents, for the appearance of those defendants before court for examination. The respondents objected to this prayer and the lower court dismissed the petition. In revision the plaintiff seeks to reverse that order.

2. The practice of a party causing his opponent to be summoned as a witness was disapproved in rather strong terms by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Kishori Lal v. Chunni Lal (ILR. 31 All 116). That has been followed in several subsequent decisions in India (Vide Lal Kunwar v. Chiranji Lal (ILR. 32 Ali 164); Biram Das v. Mangal Singh (ILR. 1929 Lah. 868); Pirgonda Hongaonda v. Vishwanath Ganesh (ILR. 1956 Bom. 251); Koshy Eapen v. Idikula Varghese [5 TLT. 271] and Kunju Sheik Ahamed Kunju v. Kuriyan Easo [25 TLJ. 586]. Therefore, as a matter of right, the plaintiff cannot have defendants 9 and 10 examined as witness.

3. It is then contended that there may be special circumstances which may justify such a practice. But in this case I do not think there is any such special circumstance which necessitates the examinatio