IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4862 of 2010 Between: M/S BVR Projects, Hyderabad … Petitioner And: Smt. Sumana Reddy & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4862 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.09.2010 in IA No.1703 of 2010 in OS No.2125 of 2006 on the file of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner/D.6 under Order XVI Rule 1(2)(6) of CPC seeking summons to the Branch Manager, IDBI Bank, along with relevant records and to give evidence, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-D.6 and the learned counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent/plaintiff filed suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 21.04.2006 against the petitioner-D.6 and others in respect of the schedule property. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, as the petitioner-D.6 and others have not paid the balance sale consideration, she had no other option except to seek for cancellation of the sale deed dated 21.04.2006. Learned counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff however contends that she had paid the balance sale consideration to the petitioner-D.6 and for that purpose she obtained housing loan from IDBI Bank in a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- . The petitioner-D.6 further contends that he has not received the balance sale consideration either from the plaintiff or from IDBI bank and hence, he intends to examine the Branch Manager of IDBI bank to establish the said fact. During the course of trial, the petitioner-D.6 filed petition seeking to examine the Branch Manager of IDBI bank as a witness and the said application was dismissed by the trial Court mainly on the ground that it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish her case through cogent and positive evidence without harping on the weakness of other side if any. Learned counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff would submit that if the petitioner seeks to examine the Branch Manager as a witness he can do so as a witness on behalf of the defendants but not as a Court witness. In fact, the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is no where stated that the witness is proposed to be examined as a Court witness. It is certainly open to the petitioner-D.6 to examine the Branch Manager, IDBI Bank, as a witness on behalf of the defendants. 4. In the circumstances, it is held that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner-D.6 to examine the said witness on their behalf and to place entire evidence on record to enable the trial Court for effective adjudication of the dispute in a comprehensive manner. The impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner-D.6 for issuance of summons is set aside and consequently, IA No.1703 of 2010 is allowed. 5. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.06.2011 bss