Plaintiff is the revision petitioner.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he was not competent to enter into any contract between 1998 and 2008 and consequently, the sale deed executed by him in favour of defendants 1 and 2 cannot be acted upon and for injunction. In that suit, defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte and the third defendant viz., the third respondent herein filed a statement and when the case is ripe for trial, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed application under Order XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to issue summons through court to defendants 1 and 2 for their appearance for examination and to produce the sale deed dated 21.10.2004 registered as document No.5253 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Konnur. That application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to summon defendants 1 and 2 who remained absent to give evidence and only by examining them, the revision petitioner can prove his case that the document executed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was not valid and defendants 1 and 2 will not get a