THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3911 of 2009 Date:21.08.2009 Between: Doppa Rama Rao. ..Petitioner and Thippavajjula Sarojini Devi. ..Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3911 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against order dated 02.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.451 of 2009 in O.S.No.736 of 2008 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed for recovery of amount based on a promissory note. The matter was coming up for further evidence of D.W.1. At this stage, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.451 of 2009 seeking to summon the Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Bheemunipatnam, for the purpose of examining him as supporting witness to the case of the petitioner/defendant. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff are working in the Agricultural Market Committee, Bheemunipatnam. The petitioner/defendant opposed the suit transaction since the day when execution took place was the working day. The respondent/plaintiff contended that she took oral permission from the office. The petitioner/defendant, in his evidence as D.W.1, admitted that being a supervisor, he used to attend outside work also. The trial Court, having considered the material available on record, observed that since after lapse of two years, the proposed witness may not be in a position to recollect the oral permission and since it was the part of duty of D.W.1 to go outside and perform duties, summoning the proposed witness would not serve any purpose, and accordingly dismissed the interlocutory application. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially as it is not possible to the proposed witness to recollect the oral permission given to the respondent/plaintiff after lapse of two years, I am of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the trial Court in dismissing the interlocutory application does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 21st August, 2009 GHN