IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1995 of 2011 Between: G.M. Shanth Veeranna … Petitioner And Bharath Kumar V. Shah … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.S. Anand Counsel for the respondent: Sri M.V.K. Sitaram This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1995 of 2011 ORDER: 1) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order and decree, dated 30.04.2011, in I.A.No.1267 of 2010 in O.S.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, whereunder and whereby the petition filed to reopen the defendant side evidence to examine the Income Tax Practitioner, was dismissed. 2) The facts are that the petitioner filed I.A.No.1267 of 2010 to summon the Income Tax Practitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that after examination of the Income Tax Officer as DW.2 on behalf of the petitioner/defendant, the suit was adjourned. The counsel for the petitioner was under the impression that the suit was adjourned for further evidence to be adduced on behalf of the petitioner and therefore he could not examine the Income Tax Practitioner. On 22.10.2010, when the matter was called for arguments, at that time the counsel realised his mistake that the matter was not adjourned for further evidence of the Income Tax Practitioner. 3) The trial Court, while taking note of the fact that in the presence of the petitioner’s counsel, the evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments, held that the question of petitioner’s counsel being under the impression that the matter was posted for further evidence does not arise, and accordingly dismissed the I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 4) At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after examination of the Income Tax Officer as DW.2, examination of Income Tax Practitioner is very much essential to prove the case and therefore an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to examine the Income Tax Practitioner to prove the disputed signature of the respondent. 5) In view of the fact that the Income Tax Officer was already examined as DW.2, to prove the documents, the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity for the petitioner to adduce further evidence by examining the Income Tax Practitioner. Since there was mistake on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the trial Court, the party cannot be made to suffer. Hence, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to examine the Income Tax Practitioner on his behalf. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is reopened for the purpose of examining the Income Tax Practitioner. The trial Court shall fix a date for examination of the Income Tax Practitioner and on such date the petitioner should examine the Income Tax Practitioner. If the petitioner fails to produce the Income Tax Practitioner, then the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter to decide the case on merits in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties. 6) The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J Date: 12.09.2011 ES