PANATULA RAMA RAO Vs. NUDURUPATI VARA PRASADA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the orders passed in the interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos.1114 and 1113 of 2016 in O.S.No.383 of 2006 by the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, these two revision petitions are filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the respondents/defendants.

(2.) This is a common order passed in the above interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed the aforementioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale with an alternative prayer for refund of earnest money with interest. In the said suit the first defendant has not been examined as a witness. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the above two applications, one for the reopen of the evidence and other for recall of the first defendant as a witness. The trial court dismissed those two applications with an observation that non-examination of the first defendant as a witness is not fatal to the case of the plaintiffs, as the court may draw an adverse inference for non-examination of the first defendant as a witness.

(3.) The learned counsel for petitioners and the respondents have not disputed about the said proposition of law. It is a fact that the first defendant has not been examined as a witness in this case. The trial appears to have been completed. The trial Court felt that there is no need to examine first defendant by reopening the case and recalling him as a witness. It is also of the view that as per the facts and circumstances of this case, the court can draw an adverse inference in this case.