THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5246 of 2009 (Dated 24-11-2009) Between M/s.Vision Labs Institute II Floor, 4, Motilal Nehru Nagar, Begumpet Main Road, Hyderabad …Revision petitioner A n d Hampaiah S/o late D.Somappa Hospet, Bellary District, Karnataka ….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5246 of 2009 s ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 14.9.2009 passed in I.A.No.1474 of 2009 in O.S.No.690 of 2007 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.690 of 2007 under Section 151 CPC and permitted the plaintiff to examine Mr.Ch.Pragada as Pw.2 in the suit. 2. When the revision came up for admission, the respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the revision is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant submits that the petitioner-defendant filed a detailed counter resisting the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff in I.A.No.1474 of 2009, but the trial Court proceeded to allow the application without adverting to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel took me to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the respondent-plaintiff has made out sufficient reasons for not examining Mr.Ch.Pragada prior to closure of evidence on his behalf and the trial Court having satisfied with the reasons, proceeded to allow the application, and therefore, the order impugned in this revision, is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. He closed his evidence, and thereafter, the defendant commenced his evidence and the defendant also closed his evidence and the case stood posted for arguments. At that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1474 of 2009 under Section 151 CPC, seeking permission to examine Mr.Ch.Pragada as a witness on his behalf. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that Mr.Pragada was not available to adduce evidence on his behalf and the said Pragada returned from U.S.A very recently and therefore, he moved an application to examine him as a witness on his behalf. 8. The defendant filed counter resisting the said application. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the evidence of Mr.Ch.Pragada would no way help the plaintiff and the said Pragada left for U.S.A after submitting his resignation from the defendant’s firm. 9. The learned Senior Civil Judge, allowed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff, by order dated 14.9.2009, which reads as hereunder:- “Counter also filed. Heard petition is allowed”. 10. The various contentions advanced by the defendant resisting the application of the plaintiff to summon Ch.Pragada at the stage when the case posted for arguments are not adverted to by the learned Senior Civil Judge while passing the order impugned. In that view of the matter, this revision is allowed at the stage of admission setting aside the order dated 14.9.2009 passed in I.A.No.1474 of 2009 and remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Note:- Registry is directed to issue copy within two(2) days (B/o) RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5246 of 2009 (Dated 24-11-2009)