IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4025 OF 2010 Between: M/s Narayani Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Representative D.Raj Kumar, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam. …Petitioner A n d M/s Parameswari Steel Traders, Rep. by Sri Kancharla Sadashiv Visakhapatnam. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4025 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 06-08-2010 in I.A.No.265 of 2010 in O.S.No.1146 of 2007, on the file of the IV-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed under Order XVI Rule 1 (2) CPC by the respondent herein, the defendant, for issuing summons to the director of the plaintiff-company by name Ms.Bina Choudary to give evidence, was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.150/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. None appeared for the respondent/defendant. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,34,157/- allegedly due from the defendant. The defendant filed a written statement disputing their liability and inter alia contending that on 17-12-2003, the defendant paid Rs.1 lakh to the Managing Director of the plaintiff by name Ms.Bina Choudary and she acknowledged the same on a piece of paper and that on the same day, the defendant paid another sum of Rs.90,000/- to the representative of the plaintiff which was also acknowledged on a piece of paper. The said documents were marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2 during the course of evidence. It is stated that when the matter reached the stage of arguments, the defendant filed I.A.No.265 of 2010 seeking issuance of summons to the said Ms.Bina Choudary, Director of the plaintiff- company for giving evidence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff would contend that the application filed at the stage of arguments is highly belated. The trial Court has allowed the application on payment of costs of Rs.150/- obviously to compensate the delay and the same was received by the petitioner/plaintiff, of course, under protest. 5. The specific plea of the defendant in the written statement is that an amount of Rs.1 lakh was paid to Ms.Bina Choudary on 17-12-2003 and she passed a receipt. The plaintiff has not examined the said Ms.Bina Choudary either to affirm or deny the said alleged payment of Rs.1 lakh. The defendant has already produced a receipt Ex.B-1 which according to them was issued by Ms.Bina Choudary. The plaintiff has not examined the said witness. The defendant is certainly justified in requesting the Court to issue summons to the said Ms.Bina Choudary so that the truth or otherwise of the alleged payment under the receipt Ex.B-1 can come out. The whole purpose of conducting a trial by recording the evidence is only to arrive at the truth. It is not as though the defendant has, for the first time raised the said plea of payment at the time of trial or during the course of arguments. A specific plea was taken in the written statement itself alleging payment of Rs.1 lakh to Ms.Bina Choudary. In the fitness of things, the plaintiff ought to have examined the said Ms.Bina Choudary, who is the plaintiff’s Director either to affirm or deny the said payment. When the plaintiff has not taken any steps to examine the said witnesses, the defendant had to file this application. Of course, the application filed at the stage of arguments was rather belated but the aspect of delay has been duly taken care of by the trial Court by imposing costs of Rs.150/-. 6. Having regard to the pleadings and the nature of dispute pertaining to the alleged payment of Rs.1 lakh under Ex.B-1, the evidence of the said witness Ms.Bina Choudary certainly assumes relevance and importance and her evidence would have a direct bearing over the result of the suit. Under those circumstances, the trial Court was justified in allowing the application and directing issuance of summons to the said witness Ms.Bina Choudary to give evidence before the Court. The discretion exercised by the trail Court in issuing summons to the witness does not, therefore, call for interference by this Court. As the matter is at the stage of arguments, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same at an early date preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th June, 2011 Lrkm