IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISON PETITION NO : 3781 of 2009 Between: Sri Eka satyanarayana, S/o Nookaraju ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Satyanarayana Cement & Fertilizers represented by its proprietor Vuda Bangar Raju .....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No. 388 of 2009 in O.S.No. 313 of 2004 dated 14.7.2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Narasipatnam. I.A.No. 388 of 2009 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 3 of CPC requesting the court to give permission to examine one Mr. Grandhi Kali Satyanarayana and another on his behalf, to prove his claim and to rebut the case of petitioner- defendant in the interest of justice. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff herein is the proprietor of the firm and the suit is filed for recovery of amount due on credit sales of the defendant for his retail shop. It is stated that the defendant did not specifically deny the purchases made by him on credit, as proved by the documents filed by the respondent- plaintiff, but has quite curiously denied the signatures on cash receipts and delivery challans when confronted to him. Then to prove the signatures of the petitioner-defendant and to prove the suit claim the respondent-plaintiff compelled to place rebuttal evidence. Hence, he filed I.A to rebut the case of the petitioner-defendant by examining one Mr. Grandhi Kali Satyanarayana and the Court below allowed the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record. As the court below thought it fit that it will be more useful for the respondent-plaintiff herein if he examines Mr. Grandhi Kali Satyanarayana to rebut the case of the petitioner-defendant, it gave an opportunity to the respondent-plaintiff. The Court below rightly exercised its jurisdiction by proper adjudication of the matter and to give opportunity to the respondent-plaintiff so as to establish his case, allowed the application. Therefore, I see no reasons to exercise discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Dt. 11.09.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD Copies