THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2880 & 2907 of 2010 BETWEEN: 1. Kari Sarojini Ramu W/o. Kari Ramu, working as teacher Nalanda Talent School, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam, R/o. 50-95-2/1 Flat No.303, Sri Sai Apartments Beside Sai Baba Temple, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, and another. PETITIONERS AND A.B. Constructions rep. by its Kartha Hindu Undivided Family Sri Adapa Bhimeswara Swamy, R/o.50-93-5/2, Sri Krishna Residency, Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam-530 016. RESPONDENT Counsel for Petitioner: Sri P. Rajasekhar Counsel for Respondent: N.A. The Court made the following order: COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are preferred by the petitioners against the common order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in I.A.Nos.1201 and 1202 of 2009 in O.S.No.179 of 2006. The respondent is the plaintiff and the petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the contract. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the agreement is not supported by consideration and that the time is essence of the contract. At that stage, they filed I.A.No.1201 of 2009 under Section 151 of C.P.C., to reopen the matter for the purpose of adducing further evidence on behalf of the defendants; and I.A.No.1202 of 2009 under Order 16 Rule 1 (2) C.P.C., to issue summons to Suryachandra Rao, partner, Rao & Manoj Associates, Chartered Accounts, to give evidence and for the purpose of cross- examination in respect of the documents produced under Order XII Rule 8 C.P.C., contending that they served a notice to the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 8 C.P.C, to produce Income Tax returns and records pertaining to him. Accordingly the plaintiff filed PAN Card and Income tax returns, certified by its auditor. To prove their case it is essential to summon the said auditor to give evidence. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter resisting the petitions. The trial Court observed that there is no necessity to summon the auditor to prove the relevancy of those documents and in fact, Order XVI of CPC does not help the petitioners to summon the auditor. On the other hand they can put these documents to PW.1 by recalling him. Admittedly, those documents are produced by the respondent/plaintiff on the memo served by the petitioners/defendants. Hence if the petitioners want to ascertain any information, the respondent is the best person to speak about the contents therein, as the returns will be prepared by the auditor basing on the information given by the parties. Observing so, the trial Court dismissed the applications. Hence the present revision petitions. The provision under Order 16 Rule 1(2) of C.P.C is very clear about the procedure for examination of witnesses in a suit. Further the suit is filed long back in the year 2006 and the scope of the suit is very narrow and limited. The trial Court has the discretion either to direct the parties to execute sale deed or to refund the amount under Section 23 of the Specific relief Act, 1963. Since the suit is of the year 2006, giving opportunity to the defendants to reopen the suit and to summon the auditor, who attested the income tax return, at this stage, does not arise. I see no merit in the impugned order passed by the lower Court warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 23th July, 2010 Js.