( 1 ) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 1366 of 2000 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, kakinada, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount. The trial of the suit commenced. On behalf of the respondent, her husband was examined as P. W. 1 and the scribe of the pro-note was examined as P. W. 2. Thereafter, the respondent filed I. A. No. 2191 of 2003 under Order 18 Rule 3-A read with Section 151 c. P. C. , seeking permission to depose as witness- P. W. 3. The application was resisted by the petitioner and ultimately, the trial Court passed an order, dated 1-10-2004, allowing the I. A. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

( 2 ) MS. G. Ramalakshmi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirement under Rule 3-A of Order 18 C. P. C. is dual in nature. According to her, apart from satisfying itself that there was justifiable reason for belated submission of the application, the trial Court must satisfy itself that the opportunity would not be utilized by the concerned witness to fill the lacunae left in the evidence of other witnesses. She contends that though a semblance of compliance is evident as to the first requirement, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document