( 1 ) HEARD Sri Krishna Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri Hari Prasad, counsel representing the respondent.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner filed the C. R. P. questioning the order made in i. A. No. 2815 of 2002 in O. S. No. 347 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The defendant in the said suit moved the aforesaid application under Order XVI Rule1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning the witnesses, whose description had been furnished, to establish the execution of the document and also the aspect of possession. The said application was resisted and ultimately, the application was dismissed mainly on the ground that this Court while disposing of C. R. P. No. 5779 of 2002 observed that if the petitioner filed list of witnesses only he will be entitled to examine further witnesses on his behalf, otherwise, he is not entitled to examine further witnesses in case I. A. No. 2526 of 2002 being allowed. This observation was made while making an order in relation to the recall of D. W. 1 for cross-examination. It appears much water had flown subsequent thereto. Be that as it may, the original pleading was amende

Click Here to Read the rest of this document