HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.3466 of 2006 DATED: 02.03.2010 BETWEEN: Vemuri Durgaparasad and another .. Petitioners And Kornepati Prasad .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.3466 of 2006 ORDER:- This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree dated 15.06.2006 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in I.A.No.1981 of 2005 in O.S.No.1412 of 2003. 2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit, which is based on a promissory note dated 09.01.2002. Their version in the written statement is that the suit promissory note is fabricated document and it was set up by Vemuri Raja Kumar, vendor of the Court Stationery and Vemuri Srinivas, advocate practicing at Guntur and that he obtained a sealed cover of urgent notice and warrant of attachment in I.A.No.2412 of 2003 in O.S.No.1412 of 2003 from the Nazarat of the District Court, Guntur and got served the same in collusion with the Court staff and the said fact was enquired into by the District Judge and it was ultimately proved that the endorsement made on the notice and warrant are false. Therefore, according to the defendants the pronote was created one owing to a dispute relating to moveable property between the parties and therefore, no decree can be passed basing on such a promissory note. 3. However, they filed a petition under Order 16 Rules 1 and 2 Read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to issue summons to 10 persons whose names were not mentioned in the list of witnesses which is at the belated stage i.e. after the closure of the evidence of DW2. As rightly pointed out by the trial court that the revision petitioner had already filed a petition for summoning the witness i.e. the bailiff of Guntur Court by filing a similar petition earlier which was allowed by the trial Court. Further, when the names of witnesses are not given in list of witnesses furnished as referred and where no sufficient reason has been assigned for summoning altogether 10 witnesses at a belated stage and in such a situation, the Court is not obliged to issue summons to the witnesses at the stage of closure of evidence. The learned trial Court gave appropriate reasons for refusing to issue summons to 10 witnesses, whom the revision petitioners proposed to be examine and there is no error of jurisdiction committed by the learned trial Court in dismissing the application which warrants interference by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Absolutely, I see no merit in the revision. 4. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:02.03.2010 kvrm