MADDULA BRAHMAIAH Vs. RAMA FINANCIAL SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition was admitted on 27. 11. 2006 by this Court and interim stay of trial had been granted in CRPMP No. 7786 of 2006. CRPMP No. 4938 of 2008 is filed by the first respondent praying for vacation of the interim stay granted by this Court in the application already specified supra. Respondents 2 to 4 though had been shown as parties in the revision petition, it is specified that they are not necessary parties.

(2.) AT the time of hearing of the vacate application CRPMP No. 4938 of 2008, sri Y. V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and sri Janardhan Rao representing Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel representing the first respondent-plaintiff-vacate petitioner made a request for final disposal of the revision petition itself. Hence, the C. R. P. was heard finally by this Court.

(3.) SRI Y. V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the petitioner filed application in I. A. No. 2217 of 2006 in o. S. No. 55 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, under order 16, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to direct the Chit Registrar to produce auction register, balance sheet, minutes book and other documents of chit transaction No. PMR 1/23 of Sri Rama Chits and Finance Corporation, Eluru. The counsel would maintain that the dismissal of the application filed under Order 16 Rule 6 of the Code on the ground that the Chit Registrar was not shown as a witness in the list of witnesses, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also had drawn attention of this Court through Order 16, Rule 6 and also Order 16, rule 1 of the Code and would maintain that these documents being essential for the purpose of deciding the question in controversy. The application was filed only praying for a direction to the Chief Registrar to produce auction Register, balance sheet, minutes book and other documents of chit transaction concerned. The counsel also would maintain that the other grounds referred to filing of c. C. No. 108 of 2002 and obtaining certified copies of the documents also cannot be sustained for the reasons that the certifies copies of these documents were in fact never obtained and no attempt had been made on the part of the petitioner in this regard. The learned counsel would maintain that the reasons, which had been recorded by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, are unsustainable and the revision petition is to be allowed. The learned counsel relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.