THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P. Nos. 1397 and 1399 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both these civil revision petitions is identical to each other, both the C.R.Ps. are disposed of by this common order. C.R.P. No. 1397 of 2010: This civil revision petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order made in I.A. No. 83 of 2010 in O.S. No. 66 of 2006 dated 23.2.2010, whereunder the application filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to summon the witnesses, whose affidavits are already filed as DWs 6 and 7, was dismissed. Petitioner is the defendant. Respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent laid suit in O.S. No. 66 of 2006 for recovery of money on the basis of pronote. The said suit was at arguments stage. Apart from that, first, the defendant let in evidence and, thereafter, the plaintiff was allowed to lead evidence and the evidence on both sides was closed. After closing of the evidence on the side of plaintiff, petitioner-defendant filed present I.A., under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The said application was resisted by respondent-plaintiff. On a consideration of the matter, the trial Court passed the following order: “The record reveals that as the burden is on the defendant to prove the genuineness of the receipt passed by the plaintiff. Trial was started on 1.8.08. It is being adjourned from time to time and finally it was posted for the arguments on 9th February, 2010 from 25.1.10. Later this application is filed. Even though this is a simple suit for recovery of the amount, it takes about three years to reach the arguments stage. The docket reveals the defendant has been taking time on each and every occasion. If the matter is not posted for arguments the parties can be permitted to let in any further evidence. In fact, the evidence of defendant was closed already, later the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. It seems only to fill the lacuna this application has been filed. More over in the decision reported in 2007 (2) ALT 475 a. Sankar Lingam v. Meharunnisa Begum and others. The facts in the above cited decision reveal that a petition was filed to summon the witnesses when the matter is posted for arguments of the defendant. Under those circumstances, it was observed by their Lordship that normally parties to be permitted to examine witnesses of their choice and courts fold liberal, however the present application being belated and not bona fide a witness cannot be summoned. The circumstances reveal that only to protract the matter this application has been filed. More over as this application has been filed after the closure of the evidence and the matter is posted for arguments. So I see there are no grounds to allow this application. Hence this application is dismissed”. The above facts would clearly indicate that though the chief affidavits of DWs 4 and 5 were filed, they have not turned up and their evidence was eschewed. Thereafter, the evidence on the side of plaintiff was also closed. After that, present I.A. was filed seeking to summon B. Narasaiah and Kalluri Sanjeevaiah, as DWs 4 and 5, for giving evidence. When their evidence was eschewed, petitioner-defendant did not take any steps to renew the same after closing his evidence. Therefore, as rightly observed by the trial Court, the present I.A. is filed only to fill in the lacunae on the part of petitioner-defendant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in dismissing the I.A. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. C.R.P. No. 1399 of 2010: In view of dismissal of C.R.P. No. 1397 of 2010 and the reasons stated therein, this civil revision petition also is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 29-3-2010. MVB.