IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1138 OF 2010 BETWEEN Sanjay Kumar Pandey. …PETITIONER AND Bank of India and three others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: MR. LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. S. SURYA PRAKASA RAO FOR R1 The Court made the following: - ORDER: The petitioner/fourth defendant in O.A.No.141 of 2009 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad questions the order of the tribunal dismissing his application being I.A.No.228 of 2009 dated 10.03.2010. 2. Petitioner, as one of the guarantors, was arrayed in the said OA as defendant No.4. It appears that the first respondent bank has examined one Asset Recovery Manager as witness on their behalf and marked documents through him. According to the petitioner, the said witness is incompetent to speak about the facts relating to the loan transaction in question. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present application seeking to summon the Bank Manager of the first respondent bank, who released the loan in question. The petitioner also wanted to summon the Managing Director of the borrowing company on the ground that they have remained ex parte and are not participating in the enquiry before the tribunal. The said application was rejected by the tribunal. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent bank. 4. I am unable to find any error in the impugned order of the tribunal in view of the fact that it is for the first respondent bank to decide to examine its witness in proof of its case before the tribunal. The petitioner cannot compel the first respondent bank (who is in the position of plaintiff so far as O.A.No.141 of 2009 is concerned) to examine a particular witness. I am therefore, unable to find any legal right of the petitioner to compel the first respondent bank to examine it’s the then Bank Manager, who is said to have sanctioned and released the loan in question. Secondly, the Managing Director of the first defendant – company is a co-defendant along with the petitioner and whether he is set ex party or otherwise the petitioner cannot compel production of co-defendant as witness, particularly, as the petitioner is said to have stood as guarantor for the loan amount borrowed by the co- defendant. The impugned order is, therefore, clearly within the jurisdiction and justified and calls for no interference by this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 30, 2010 DSK