IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4125 OF 2009 Between: D. Leelavathi .....PETITIONER AND Dammalapati Ramalingam and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4125 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 29.07.2009, in I.A.No.893 of 2009 in O.S.No.198 of 2003, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XVI Rule 7 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) to issue summons to one Relangi Raju, Architect and Property Valuer, M/s. Sai City Builders, Wyra Road, Khammam, to determine the market value of suit schedule property for better and effective adjudication, was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner without co-operating with the disposal of the suit filed petitions one after another and further more, the witness was not necessary for adjudication of dispute in the suit. 2. Heard. 3. Order XVI Rule 7 (A) C.P.C. is enabling provision. It enacts that on an application by a party to the suit, the Court may allow him to effect service of summons upon any person. 4. As seen from the impugned order, opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence on her behalf. Even if the petitioner wants to examine any witness with regard to the valuation of the suit schedule property, she should have called for and examined him, but not leisurely at the late hour. The petitioner allowed the evidence to be closed and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the present petition was filed by the petitioner to summon the witness to speak about the assessing of the value of the suit schedule property. This type of practice of filing petitions when the matter was posted for arguments is highly deprecated. If it is a case where no opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence, then it is a different matter. It is not the case of the petitioner that without granting any adjournments for further evidence, her evidence was closed. The trial Court passed the impugned order in accordance with law. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order and the revision petition is devoid of merit. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 11, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4125 OF 2009 November 11, 2010