BONTHU VENKATARAMANA Vs. PATREVU SAMBA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bonthu Venkataramana, Revision petitioner herein aggrieved by the order made in LA. No.632/2003 in O.S. No.58/90 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram had preferred the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The revision petitioner as petitioner/ plaintiff moved an application I.A. No.632/ 2003 in O.S. No.58/90 under Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "Code" in short, praying for permission to examine the plaintiff as a witness. The said application was opposed by 3rd respondent by filing a counter in detail and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram after framing the Points for consideration ultimately allowed the application permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to be examined as a witness on his behalf, but he shall speak only on the aspect of fresh additional issue framed recently by the said Court and not on any other aspect during his chief-examination and directed the suit to be posted for trial to 24-7-2003. Aggrieved by the imposition of such condition, the Revision petitioner though successful in getting the application allowed to some extent had preferred the present civil revision petition.

(3.) Sri Upendra, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner would contend that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram had not properly understood the scope and ambit of the order of remand dated 9-3-2000 made in A.S. No.47/97 and Cross-objections in A.S.No.47/97 on the file of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned Counsel also would contend that the learned Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in fact had directed fresh disposal of the suit O.S. No.58/90 according to law giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence which would include both oral and documentary. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No.58/90 for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 1-4-1987 and when an order of open remand was made by the appellate Court, such restriction cannot be place on adduction of evidence while permitting the plaintiff to be examined restricting the same and limiting the same only to the additional issue. The learned Counsel also had explained the scope and ambit of Order 18, Rule 3A of the Code and placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions.