VENKATA RAMANA AGENCIES Vs. KOPPU GURANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these C.R.Ps., arise out of interlocutory applications filed in the same suit, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) C.R.P.No.2204 of 2002 arise out of I.A.No. 1891 of 2001 filed under Order XVIII Rule 3 C.P.C., to permit the revision petitioners (plaintiffs) to adduce rebuttal evidence. C.R.P.No.2205 of 2002 arises out of I.A.No.756 of 2002 filed under Order XVI Rule 1 C.P.C., to permit the revision petitioners (plaintiffs) to summon the documents mentioned therein and C.R.P.No.2206 of 2002 arises out of I.A.No.757 of 2002 filed under Order XVI Rule 2 C.P.C., by the revision petitioners (plaintiffs) to receive the list of witnesses to be examined in rebuttal evidence.

(3.) Revision petitioners filed the suit for recovery of the suit amount from the respondents (defendants) alleging that revision petitioners 2 to 5 are the partners of 1st revision petitioner and that respondents by playing fraud, misappropriated the amounts belonging to the 1st revision petitioner firm. Respondents filed written statements contesting the suit. While closing their evidence, revision petitioners filed I.A.No.189 of 2001 reserving their right to adduce rebuttal evidence. After respondents adduced their evidence, revision petitioners filed I.A.Nos. 756 and 757 of 2002 seeking permission of the Court to summon certain documents and to receive additional list of witnesses to be examined them during lebuttal evidence. All the three petitions were dismissed by a common order on the ground that when the burden of proof on all the issues is on them, question of revision petitioners reserving their right to adduce rebuttal evidence does not arise. Hence these revisions.