V RAJESHWAR Vs. N GURUCHARANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.Srinivasa Reddy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel representing the first respondent.

(2.) Sri Srinivasa Reddy representing the revision petitioner-first defendant would contend that normally summoning the witness along with the records to be allowed and the reasons which had been recorded by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, are totally unsustainable reasons. The learned counsel also had taken this court through certain factual details and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal could have given an opportunity to the revision petitioner by allowing the application. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of this court in Gopala Krishna Murthy Vs. B.Ramchander Rao and others. AIR 1973 A.P. 309

(3.) Per Contra, Sri Rama Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel representing the first respondent-plaintiff would submit that several of the facts are not in controversy and this application is thought of only to further delay the matter and in a way it can be said that this application is a frivolous application for the reason that there is no foundation in the pleadings relating to the case which now the revision petitioner intends to build up and in view of the lack of pleadings, the question of adducing any evidence in that direction would not be of any help to resolve any controversy whatsoever involved in the suit. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decisions in Bandi Narsaiah (died) and others Vs. Virabathini Mallesham and another, 1997 (4) ALT 583 Vinod Kumar Arora Vs. Smt.Surjit Kaur, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2179 and Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1242