AJRA AZMATH Vs. KURRA PRAMEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 1. 2. 2008 while admitting the civil revision petition, this Court in crpmp No. 547 of 2008 granted interim stay as prayed for until further orders. CRPMP No. 4597 of 2008 is filed with prayer to vacate the interim stay granted on 1. 2. 2008 in CRPMP No. 547 of 2008 in CRP No. 419 of 2008 and pass suitable orders. When the vacate petition came up for hearing, Sri R. L. Narasimha Phani representing Sri A. Satyanarayana, learned counsel representing the revision petitioners and also Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel representing the vacate petitioner-respondent in the revision petition made a request for final disposal of the CRP itself. Hence, at that stage the CRP itself was heard finally by this Court.

(2.) THE learned counsel representing for the revision petitioners Sri r. L. Narasimha Phani had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties and also would maintain that when application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been filed the appellate court instead of hearing the said application and passing an order could have postponed the application by calling the same along with the appeal and could have disposed of the application along with the appeal. The learned counsel also had pointed out the order of this Court in c. R. P. No. 5028 of 2006 and further relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

(3.) ON the contrary, the learned counsel representing the respondent Sri c. Raghu would maintain that these applications are being filed only with a view to delay the hearing of the appeal. The counsel pointed out that previously an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code had been filed and questioning the said order CRP No. 5028 of 2006 was filed and this Court was pleased to direct the appellate court to consider I. A. No. 416 of 2006 while deciding a. S. No. 4 of 2002. Again another application had been filed to permit the revision petitioners to adduce oral evidence. The learned counsel would maintain that while deciding the application of this nature the provisions of order 41, Rule 27 of the Code are to be satisfied and apart from this aspect of the matter when the revision petitioners propose to adduce oral evidence at the stage of appeal, such application to be scrutinized with care and caution. The learned counsel would maintain that when the revision petitioners are making attempt to adduce oral evidence at the stage of appeal by furnishing certain names for the first time, whose names had not been furnished before the original court, no attempt at least had been made to examine any such witnesses. The learned counsel in all fairness would maintain that if such an attempt had been made, the same had been refused by the original court may be the present application could have been thought of. Even otherwise the averments made in the affidavit also do not satisfy the conditions specified in Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code. Hence the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the revision petitioners may not be applicable to the facts of the present case.