IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.641 of 2010 Between: Mallareddy Bhaskara Rao and another ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Nanubla Guna Manjari and another ..... RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: This revision is directed against the order and decree dated 07- 12-2009 passed in I.A.No.636 of 2009 in O.S.No.194 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The petitioners in this revision are the defendants 1 and 2 and respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiff 1 and 2 in O.S.No.194 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.636 of 2009 under Section 30 r/w.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to direct second plaintiff to give evidence and to give an opportunity to the defendants to prove their contentions. The lower Court dismissed the said petition. Challenging the same, this revision has been filed. 3. Admittedly, the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants basing on a simple mortgage. Their main case is that the second plaintiff played an important role and that the amounts were paid to him and that he is a proper person to disclose all the facts. It is also stated that the first plaintiff does not know anything as to what all transpired between the second plaintiff and the defendants. 4. The plaintiffs case is that the first plaintiff has been examined as PW-1 and documents have been marked and that PW-2 is also examined on their behalf and the suit is posted for the evidence of defendants. Admittedly, the suit is filed for recovery of certain amounts basing on the simple mortgage deed alleged to have been executed by defendants. The plaintiff is the master of his suit. It is for the plaintiff to adduce the evidence required for the purpose of proving his case. The defendants can adduce evidence to prove their contention that the second plaintiff had played an important role in the transaction. Then if second plaintiff is not examined the defendants may plead that for non- examination of second plaintiff adverse inference may be drawn against the plaintiffs. 5. The lower Court observed that the defendants have not taken any such plea in their written statement that the second plaintiff played an important role. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri.K. Manik Prabhu submitted that there are no merits in the revision and that it is for the plaintiffs to adduce the necessary evidence and the defendants cannot force the plaintiffs to examine any witness on their behalf. 7. When the matter came up before this Court the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants was directed to produce the certified copy of the deposition of PW-1 to know whether any suggestions have been given to him that the second plaintiff played an important role in the transaction. The copy of the deposition is not produced before this Court. Any how having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not see any irregularity in the order passed by the lower Court. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J July 29, 2011 PN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.641 of 2010 July 29, 2011 PN