IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3192 OF 2011 Between: Thota Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner A n d Tokaka Sai Babu ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3192 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.07.2011 in I.A.No.264 of 2011 in O.S.No.15 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC seeking issuance of summons to the three witnesses i.e., G.Kotaiah, K.Manga Tayaru and Sk.Mahabub for recording their evidence, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner for recovery of money in a sum of Rs.2,85,733/- and interest based on a pronote. The petitioner/defendant filed the written statement contesting the suit. After settlement of issues, the trial of the suit has commenced and P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The petitioner/defendant was examined as D.W.1 and two other witnesses were also examined on his behalf. When the matter was coming up for further evidence, the petitioner/defendant filed an application seeking issuance of summons to the above three witnesses for recording their evidence. The respondent filed a counter opposing the same inter alia on the ground that the evidence of the proposed witnesses is irrelevant as they have no knowledge of the suit transaction. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application. Hence, the present revision by the petitioner/defendant. 4. According to the petitioner, the proposed witness, K.Manga Tayaru is behind filing of the suit by the plaintiff and the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff, also shows that he was only a name lender. According to him, there was some conversation between him and Manga Tayaru which was recorded with the help of tape recorder and also video graphed through cell phone camera and that the same were also produced before the Court, but they were not received as exhibits. He, therefore, intends to examine Manga Tayaru for the purpose of marking the CDs. The question as to whether or not the audio tapes, video cassette are admissible in evidence through the evidence of K.Manga Tayaru and whether or not they are relevant at all, are matters to be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage when they are sought to be produced in evidence. He seeks to examine G.Kotaiah, Process Server, who according to him failed to serve the notice on the respondent, but the Court refused to mark the said report of the process server. He seeks to examine the 3rd witness Sk.Mahabub for the purpose of showing that the plaintiff had no capacity to lend. According to the defendant, he borrowed amounts from Manga Tayaru and handed over blank promissory notes on different dates and the defendant has been paying interest to Manga Tayaru till October, 2006 and thereafter failed to pay the interest and there was mediation before the elders in November, 2006 and defendant sought time of six months to clear off the debt and Manga Tayaru also agreed for the same on elders advice. The signatures on the pronotes are not disputed by the defendant. His only plea is that he has not borrowed the amount from the plaintiff, but borrowed the same from Manga Tayaru. As seen from the impugned order, D.W.1 admitted in the evidence that he knows P.W.1. The defendant seeks issuance of summons for the witnesses mentioned in the petition in the course of discharge of the burden lying on him to establish his contention. What the evidence of those witnesses is going to be and whether it will have any bearing on the issues falling for determination and to what extent their evidence would be relevant, are matters to be considered at a latter stage after the witnesses are examined and their evidence is recorded. When a party seeks issuance of summons to examine witness in the interest of fair trial and to enable the party to place his entire evidence on record, the trial Court will have to adopt a liberal approach in the matter of issuance of summons unless it is found that it is only an attempt to delay the process of trial or is wholly vexatious. The name of Manga Tayaru is specially referred to in the written statement. Similarly, the defendant seeks to examine Sk. Mahabub to show that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend. There cannot be any tenable objection for issuance of summons to the said persons to be examined as witnesses on behalf of the defendant. Issuance of summons to G.Kotaiah, Process Server, is, however, unnecessary and irrelevant, as the report filed by him regarding service of notice forms part of the record. 5. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order to the extent it refuses to issue summons to the proposed witnesses K.Manga Tayaru and Sk. Mahabub is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The said persons are, therefore, permitted to be summoned to be examined as witnesses on the defendant’s side. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th November, 2011 Lrkm.