SUNIL KUMAR Vs. ANITA RANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner for setting aside order dated 16.5.2014 [wrongly mentioned as order dated 6.5.2011 in the title and para No.1 of the revision petition] whereby, application of the petitioner-plaintiff for seeking assistance of the Court for summoning of the witnesses was declined, though at the same time giving liberty to the plaintiff to examine witnesses to be produced by the plaintiff on his own responsibility.

(2.) Counsel for the revisionist-petitioner challenging the order has claimed that the impugned order is contrary to law and facts as the trial Court had no option, but was to allow the application for depositing diet money and summoning of the witnesses and that this request of the petitioner-plaintiff was wrongly declined. Support has been sought from decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gopala Krishna Murthy Vs. B. Ramchander Rao and others, 1973 AIR(AP) 309.

(3.) Suit of the plaintiff instituted on 5.12.2008, wherein issues were framed in the year 2010, is continuing pending before the trial court for conclusion of evidence by the petitioner-plaintiff where he has not even submitted any list of witnesses. After availing innumerable opportunities for leading his evidence, an application was moved by the petitionerplaintiff for summoning of the witnesses named therein claiming that those are important and material witnesses without giving details as to how those were important and material witnesses and for what purpose those were to be examined.