SHREE FINANCIERS (R) Vs. SMT. BHAGYAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the common questions of facts and law are involved in the two petitions, they are clubbed and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner filed O.S. No. 104 of 1998 against the respondents for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 57,386/ - with interest. Based on the rival pleadings, the issues were framed. The parties have lead and concluded their side of the evidence. Further both the sides have also argued out the case on merits. When the matter was set down for the reply of the petitioner -plaintiff, it filed two I.As. I.A. No. 9 for the condonation of delay in filing the list of witnesses as it wanted to examine the Bank Manager, Karnataka State Industrial Co -operative Bank, Chikkaballapur Branch and I.A. No. 10 to recall the stage from further arguments on merits to further evidence of the petitioner. The Trial Court, by its order, dated 17 -9 -2007 dismissed both the I.As. with cost. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, this petition is presented.

(3.) SRI K.V. Narasimhan, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that under Order 16, Rule 1(3), a witness whose name does not appear in the list of witnesses may be called; but the said provision can have no application for a case where no list of witnesses is filed. He further submits that the petitioner has come out with the I.As. in question only when the flaws are pointed out by the respondents in the course of the arguments. He submits that the petitioner cannot overcome the lacunae by making I.A. Nos. 9 and 10.