HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1903 of 2008 Dated : 17.06.2010 Between : G.Raveendra @ Raveendra Babu ….. Petitioner a n d E.Babu Naidu ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1903 of 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.02.2008 in I.A.No.359 of 2007 in O.S.No.230 of 2004 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, directing the revision petitioner to adduce oral evidence to mark documents as per Rule 60 of the Civil Rules of Practice after which the respondent herein also shall produce his oral evidence if he desires to mark any documents on his side. The petition was with a request to set aside the ex parte decree and the revision petitioner desired to mark the air tickets, etc. on his side without examining any witness, as examination of a witness is not a must in an enquiry into an interlocutory application. The respondent opposed the request and noting that the respondent was objecting to mark the documents without examining any witness, the trial Court felt that in the light of the enabling power under Rule 60 of the Civil Rules of Practice it will be suffice to direct both parties to adduce oral evidence to mark their documents. The trial Court also noted that mere marking of documents does not amount to proof. The revision petitioner contends herein that he wanted to file the air tickets to prove that he went abroad during the relevant period for which purpose no witness need be examined in the interlocutory enquiry. Mere absence of the petitioner need not have made the Court to pass an interim order. Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, strenuously reiterated the contentions of the revision petition. Rule 60 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990, provides for proof of facts by affidavit in interlocutory proceedings. But the rule itself refers to the contingency of the Court ordering otherwise and the Judge directing evidence to be given orally. The exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court and the Judge under the said Rule to order and direct giving of evidence orally was not specified to be subject to any conditions and it was obviously in exercise of the judicial discretion of the Court that such power can be exercised. The controversy herein is about the absence of revision petitioner from the Country between 01.09.2005 and 27.10.2005 and the substituted service effected in the suit during that period. To prove such trip to England during relevant period, the revision petitioner desires to produce air tickets and mark them without examining any witness. It is seen from the counter filed by the respondent herein to the petition that the respondent was claiming the revision petitioner to be knowing and fully aware of the proceedings in the suit and consequently the observation of the trial Court that even if the air tickets were marked, such mere marking might not have amounted to proof and it will be desirable to have the oral evidence of both the parties for an effective and comprehensive adjudication of the interlocutory application, cannot be said to be unreasonable or to be reflecting any improper exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by the trial Court. Under the circumstances, there are no strong reasons to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the restricted revisional power. The revision has to fail. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th June, 2010 SUR