THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3013 OF 2006 Date: 09-04-2010 Between Karuturi Adimurthy …..Petitioner And Gram Panchayat, Vaddiparru, rep., by its Secretary, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3013 OF 2006 ORDER: The defendant is in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the correctness of the docket order dated 14-06-2006 in I.A No. 1211 of 2005 in O.S No. 66 of 2002, wherein the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta rejected his plea to recall PW 1 for further cross examination. The respondent – plaintiff filed the above suit against the petitioner for recovery of the auction amount and his evidence was closed. When the matter was posted for the defendant’s evidence, the above I.A came to be filed by the petitioner – defendant stating that a memo is filed by the advocate that the alleged auction claimed by the defendant is waived by way of resolution and the plaintiff – Gram Panchayat recommended the same to the higher authorities seeking permission. The plaintiff suppressed the said fact and having record in its possession has not made a mention about the same or filed the same into the Court. Resolution dated 02-02-1997 and the letter addressed to the District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari, Kakinada dated 21-03-1998 from Divisional Panchayat Officer, Amalapuram are relevant to be marked by recalling PW 1. The lower Court rightly dismissed the IA accepting the plea of the respondent – plaintiff that no such documents are withheld. Further, it is nowhere mentioned in the petition of the petitioner that what record is heldup with the plaintiff and what facts are to be elicited and that after taking several adjournments, he cross examined PW 1 and when the matter is posted for his affidavit in lieu of chief examination, the above IA came to be filed to protract the litigation. I have verified the written statement filed by the petitioner in opposition of the claim of the respondent – plaintiff. Except stating that there was a cyclone storm in 1996 due to which the entire district was affected and all types of crops and trees were destroyed and he made a representation to the office of the Gram Panchayat, nowhere it is stated that acting upon his representation, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution and waived the lease amount which is the suit claim. It is now fairly well settled that in the absence of any pleading and issues framed, the oral evidence is worthless (see Central Bank of India v. H.P. Jalan[1]). Further, when it was not the defence of the petitioner which he is now sought to be proved by way of examination in his written statement nor any issue with regard to the aspect of the respondent – plaintiff recommending to waive the lease amount was framed, he cannot lead any evidence without there being any plea. In view of the same, the order passed by the lower Court dismissing the IA does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 09-04-2010 ks [1] AIR 1974 SC 1274