GARIGIPATI KESAVA RAO Vs. PRATHIPATI SRILAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed O. S. No. 1366 of 2000 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount. The trial of the suit commenced. On behalf of the respondent, her husband was examined as P. W. 1 and the scribe of the pro-note was examined as P. W. 2. Thereafter, the respondent filed I. A. No. 2191 of 2003 under Order 18 Rule 3-A read with Section 151 C. P. C., seeking permission to depose as witness- P. W. 3. The application was resisted by the petitioner and ultimately, the trial Court passed an order, dated 1-10-2004, allowing the I. A. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Ms. G. Ramalakshmi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirement under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C. P. C. is dual in nature. According to her, apart from satisfying itself that there was justifiable reason for belated submission of the application, the trial Court must satisfy itself that the opportunity would not be utilized by the concerned witness to fill the lacunae left in the evidence of other witnesses. She contends that though a semblance of compliance is evident as to the first requirement, the order under revision is totally silent as to the second requirement. She places reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Atipamula Shivalingam v. Atipamula Chinna Narsamma 1998 (2) ALD 241.

(3.) Sri. P. Girish Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the respondent did not depose as a witness in the initial stage, on account of her pregnancy, and that the trial Court was satisfied with the reason for the belated submission of the application. He contends that the petitioner did not express any apprehension that the respondent would fill the lacunae, if she figures as a witness, and in that view of the matter, the trial Court cannot be expected to deal with such an eventuality.