THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3588 and 3609 of 2010 DT.23.09.2011 Between: Ch.Rajendra Prasad s/o Samuel … Petitioner And Kapil Chit Private Limited … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.S.Murthy Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3588 and 3609 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Since these two revisions are connected, they are being disposed of by this common order. These two revisions arise out of the order dated 4-8-2010 in I.A.No.817/2010 and I.A.No.818/2010 respectively in O.S.No.233 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet. The petitioner is 1st defendant in the subject suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent company herein for recovery of money, wherein the petitioner herein/1st defendant filed two applications, one to reopen the suit and another to permit the 1st respondent to summon and examine Mr.Shaik Moulali, Branch Manager of the respondent company as his witness. The Court below on consideration of the matter, dismissed the said two applications, hence the present revisions. The case of the petitioner herein is that in the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money of Rs.88,000/- he has already paid Rs.30,.000/- to the then Branch Manager under a receipt, and during the pendency of the suit, the said Branch Manager approached him and advised to settle the issue by paying Rs.77,000/-, and accordingly the petitioner has paid Rs.70,000/- by demand draft with an understanding that the respondent will file a Memo stating that full and final settlement has been arrived at, but did not do so. The respondent/plaintiff contends that to prove the payment made in full and final settlement, earlier the petitioner/1st defendant filed I.A.Nos.791 and 792 of 2010, and though the evidence of petitioner/1st defendant was eschewed previously for his non-appearance for cross-examination, the applications in I.A.Nos.791 and 792 were allowed and the petitioner was allowed to adduce his evidence. Again the petitioner filed the present applications, when the matter is posted for arguments. Therefore, there is no bona fide on the part of the petitioner/1st defendant to reopen the suit. Though, no counter was filed by the respondent company in the said applications filed by the petitioner to reopen the suit and to summon and examine Mr.Shaik Moulali, the Branch Manager of the respondent company as his witness, who is said to have executed the compromise agreement deed dated and denied Exs.B.3 to B.5, to confront the same, it is stated that it is just and proper to examine him. As the said exhibits B.3 and B.5 are denied by the respondent/plaintiff company, I am of the opinion that the Court below ought to have considered the matter on merits by dealing with the contentions in regard to the said fact. Merely, because earlier similar applications were filed and allowed, it cannot be a ground to dismiss the said applications to reopen the suit and to summon and examine the Branch Manager of the respondent/company. In the circumstances, revisions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 04-08-2010 passed in I.A.No.817 of 2010 and I.A.No.818 of 2010 in O.S.No.233 of 2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet are set aside, and the matters are remitted back to the Court below to reconsider afresh and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 23-09-2011 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3588 and 3609 of 2010 DATE: 23.09.2011