THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition Nos : 5195 & 5323 of 2009 Between: Ch.Kamakshi ..... PETITIONER AND A.Anantha Swamy and others. .....RESPONDENTS Common Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. These two civil revision petitions are directed against the common order, dated 15.06.2009, passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, in I.A.Nos.741 and 742 of 2009 in O.S.No.191 of 2008. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit, being O.S.No.191 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 01.06.1992. Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, on coming to know that defendant Nos.3 and 4 sold the suit schedule property to the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 got impleaded her as sixth defendant vide order, dated 02.08.2001, in I.A.No.4457 of 2000. The suit is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the present applications are filed by the petitioner herein under Order XVI Rule 7-A and Section 151 of CPC to summon defendant No.3, i.e., T.Krishna Reddy, for the purpose of examining the said witness on her behalf, stating that she engaged a new counsel to represent the suit and she was advised by the new counsel to examine the vendor to substantiate the sale transaction between her and defendant Nos.3 and 4 and if she is not permitted to examine the proposed witness, she will not be able to safeguard her interests. The applications were contested by the first respondent, by filing a counter affidavit stating that it is a futile exercise to summon the proposed defendant as a witness and the present applications are filed only with a view to protract the proceedings, when the suit is coming up for arguments. The trial Court, on appreciation of the material on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to assign any reasons for not examining the proposed witness earlier, at the time of trial and that she filed the present applications to drag on the proceedings. Further, it was held that change of counsel is not a ground for summoning a witness by re-opening the suit posted for arguments. This Court discerns no infirmity warranting interference with the reasoning given by the trial Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:11.11.2009 VGB