THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1696 OF 2010 DATED 11-06-2010 Between: Veerisetty Venkata Subba Rao. … PETITIONER And Sri Venkataramana Enterprises, Nellore & 4 others. ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 22-02-2010 made in I.A.No.1003 of 2009 in O.S.No.14 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge- cum-Family Court, Nellore, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 1 CPC seeking to permit the petitioner to examine one Rebala Venkata Reddy as P.W.10, was dismissed after hearing both the parties. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants. Petitioner laid suit in O.S.No.14 of 2001 for recovery of money on the basis of mortgage transaction. It appears, evidence on both sides was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, present petition is filed. The purpose for which the witness is sought to be examined is not disclosed and the learned Judge gave a finding as under: “Before amendment of CPC, there was a provision, i.e. Order 18 Rule 17 (a) to examine any witness after closure of evidence on both sides. But after effecting amendment to CPC, the said provision was deleted from the Code. As per Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, a witness who was already examined can be recalled, but a witness, who was not examined earlier, cannot be examined. With an intention to avoid delay in disposal of cases by effecting amendments to CPC, the Order 18 Rule 17 (a) CPC was deleted. Hence a party is not permitted to file a petition under Section 151 or Order XXVI Rule 1 CPC to examine a witness afresh to circumvent the necessary amendments affected to CPC, which were intended for speedy disposal of the matters. As the petitioner/plaintiff did not furnish his list of witnesses and as the recording of evidence on both sides was closed, and as Order 18 Rule 17(a) CPC which was intended to examine a witness afresh was deleted from CPC, I do not find any reason to allow the petitioner to examine Rebala Venkata Reddy on his side. As the petition merits no consideration, the same is liable to be dismissed”. 3. Nothing is disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to what is the necessity of examining the particular witness. Except stating that the petitioner was one of the partners of the firm, which is concerned with the mortgage deed, he did not furnish the list of witnesses at any point of time nor the name of the proposed witness was enumerated in the list of witnesses furnished by him. Therefore, I am of opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error calling for the interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is nothing but playing tactics to protract the litigation. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU, J 11th June, 2010. Tsy