GANGISETTY VIJAYA KUMAR Vs. POTTI AYYANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the Order dated 27.09.2018 in I.A. No. 1391 of 2018 in O.S. No. 22 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

(2.) Petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the suit filed by the 1st respondent - plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.06.2007. Therein, the 1st respondent had taken out the subject Application to reopen his side of evidence to examine one of the attestors to the agreement of sale, by name Sri G. Lakshminarayana. The learned III Additional District Judge passed the order under revision which reads thus: " Heard both sides. Perused the affidavit, petition and counter. In the above circumstances in the interest of justice to give an opportunity the Petition is allowed on cost of Rs. 300.00 to the respondent. Cost paid memo file. Hence Petition is allowed."

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who contended that the affidavit filed in support of the Application does not contain the justifiable reasons for not examining the attestor on earlier occasion. Further, the learned counsel submits that the objections raised by the petitioner, in detail, in the counter-affidavit was not adverted to even remotely. Hence, the Order under Revision, being non-speaking, suffers from grave error, emphasizes the learned counsel. According to the learned counsel, the defendants' side evidence was also closed on 23.07.2013 itself and that therefore, the Order requires to be set aside for, the effort on the part of the plaintiff is only to fill-up the lacuna by examining the attestor.