LAWS(APH)-2005-9-105

K V PRASAD REDDY Vs. YARABOLU HARIPRASAD REDDY

Decided On September 15, 2005
K.V.PRASAD REDDY Appellant
V/S
YARABOLU HARIPRASAD REDDY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunctions, after the parties adduced evidence and arguments were heard on 31-3-2004 and after the case was reserved for judgment, petitioner filed I.A.No.650 of 2004, on 23-4-2004 to reopen his evidence and examine a witness on his behalf by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. That petition was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to record his evidence, who filed his report on 5-5-2005. Thereafter, when the case is at the stage of arguments, petitionerfiled I.A.No.694 of 2005 on 14-6-2005 seeking permission to examine himself as a witness, which was opposed by the respondent. On the ground that petitioner failed to obtain permission under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C.P.C. to examine himself at a later stage, the learned trial Judge dismissed the said petition. Hence, this revision.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since petitioner filed the suit through his General Power of Attorney Holder and examined the G.P.A. as a witness, since he is advised to examine himself also, to get over the technical difficulty of the party being absent from witness box, inasmuch as G.P.A. of a party is not a substitute for the party as held by the Apex Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v. Indusind Bank Limited and since the Court can grant permission to a party to examine himself at any stage, revision petitioner may be afforded an opportunity to examine himself as a witness.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that since the petition is filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings and since reasons for not examining the petitioner are not specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application and since it is baldly stated "to avoid technicalities, my Advocate advised me to examine my son as a witness as I am representing him as plaintiff under Power of Attorney", there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision.