D. Krishnakumar, J.

The civil revision petition arises against the order dated 08.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.92 of 2015 in O.S.No.61 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.

2. According to the petitioner, the respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.61 of 2013 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi for the relief of partition on the basis of a Will dated 07.12.1976. In the above said suit, the petitioner paid witness batta to the 1st plaintiff to examine his as defendant's side witness. But, the trial Court on 12.11.2014 refused to permit the petitioner to summon the 1st plaintiff. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.(MD) No.265 of 2015 before this Court. This Court, on 16.02.2015m dismissed the said civil revision petition on the ground that alternative remedy is available. Hence, the petitioner filed I.A.No.92 of 2015 under Order 16, Rule 21 of C.P.C., to issue summons of supina for examination of the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff. According to the petitioner, the first plaintiff is not the contesting plaintiff in the suit. However, the respondents objected the said application. The petitioner has also stated in the affidavit that the first plaintiff has not been examined as a witnesses to the said suit. The petitioner has to prove the share of the property, which belongs to the plaintiffs' mother. Therefore, he filed the instant application. However, the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the said application for the reason that the defendant cannot seek issuance of summons to the plaintiff and to compel them to examine as a witness in the said suit. Aggrieved against the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The revision petitioner cannot compel the plaintiff to examine as witnesses in the suit. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court and hence, the civil revision petition is liable to be set aside.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

5. According to the petitioner, the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.61 of 2013 for partition and separate possession. In the aforesaid suit, the first plaintiff is not the contesting plaintiff. The instant I.A.No.92 of 2015 has been filed to issue summons to the first plaintiff and to examine him as a witness in the aforesaid suit. According to the petitioner, if the first plaintiff has been examined, then, it could very well be established and proved the case and the share of the defendant could be elucidated from the said witness. Therefore, as per the provisions of Order 16, Rule 21 of C.P.C., the present application has been filed to summon the first plaintiff and to examine him as a witness.

6. The point for consideration in the present civil revision petition is as to whether the revision petitioner can seek the issuance of summons to the first plaintiff and to examine him as a witness in the said suit.

7. The instant application has been filed by the petitioner under Order 16, Rule 21 of C.P.C. It is useful to extract the provisions of Order 16, Rule 21 of C.P.C.

"21. Rules as to witnesses to apply to parties summoned- Where any party to a suit is required to give evidence or to produce a document, the provisions as to witnesses shall apply to him so for as they are applicable."

8. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in V.K.Periyasamy alias Perianna Gunder v. Rajan reported in (2001)2 M.L.J.235, wherein, this Court has held in para 12 as follows:

"12. If there was a total bar on the right of a party to summon another party to give evidence as a witness, Order 16, Rule 21 will not find a place in the code. The inclusion of th