1. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 18th April,2012 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.1, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'), whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner for summoning the witnesses as per the list annexed to the said application under the provisions contained in Order 16, Rule 1 (2) & (3) of CPC. Nobody appears for the respondent No.2-plaintiff, though duly served.

2. The learned counsel Mr. Saransh Saini for the petitioner drawing the attention of the court to the deposition of the respondent No.2-plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff had stated in his evidence interalia that the promissory note in question was executed in presence of his son-in-law Dinesh and his niece Neelam, who had also put their signatures on the same. According to Mr. Saini the said pro-note being forged one, it is necessary to examine the said two witnesses who were allegedly present and had put their signatures on the said pro-note.

3. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent No.2-plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant for re