C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,31,250/-, being the principal and interest due on the promissory note dated 9-1-2000, said to have been executed by the first revision petitioner in his favour with the second revision petitioner as surety. Revision petitioners filed their written statement, inter alia contending that they became members in an unregistered chit fund run by S. Ramudu and K. G. Murthy and participated in the bids and after the bids were knocked down in their favour they executed some documents and had also affixed their signatures to some blank stamped promissory notes and that subsequently disputes arose between them on one hand and S. Ramudu and K. G. Murthy on the other and so those two persons, in order to spite them, might have handed over the blank promissory notes to the respondent to enable him to file a suit against them.

( 2 ) REVISION petitioners admittedly did not file a list of witnesses to be examined on their behalf.

( 3 ) AFTER the respondent closed his evidence and when the matter was posted for evidence of the revision petitioners, they filed I. A. No. 78 of 2004 to summon S. Ramudu, K. G. Murthy, and D. Jagdeesh as witnesses on their behalf and the same was dismissed, as revision petitioners did not file a list of witnesses. Having filed a c. R. P. questioning the said order revision petitioners withdrew the same, stating that they would file a list of witnesses with a petition, and thereafter filed a list showing s. Ramudu, K. G. Murthy and D. Jagdeesh as the witnesses to be examined on their behalf, with a petition to condone the delay of 345 days in filing that list of witnesses vide I. A. No. 214 of 2004. After contest by the respondent the Trial Court dismissed the said I. A. by the order under revision. Hence this revision.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that revision petitioners could not file the list of witnesses as they were not properly advised, and since revision petitioners would be prejudiced if opportunity to examine witnesses is not granted to them, they may be permitted to file the list of witnesses, and an opportunity to examine witnesses on their behalf may be given to them at least by treating this petition as under Order 16, rule 1 (3) of C. P. C. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that since Rule 1 of Order 16 of C. P. C. fixed the maximum of 15 days for filing list of witnesses, from the date of framing of the issues, and since Section 148 of C. P. C. empowers the Court to extend time, either in instalments or otherwise, only to a maximum period of 30 days, question of enlarging time by 345 days does not arise, and since this petition is but an another attempt to drag on the proceedings, there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision. It is his contention that sub- rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 C. P. C. applies to cases where a list of witnesses is filed but not to cases where no list of witnesses is filed.

( 5 ) SINCE sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of order 16 of C. P. C prescribes an outer limit of 15 days from the date of settlement of issues, for filing a list of witnesses and since Court under Section 148 CPC can enlarge the time fixed by it for doing any act prescribed by C. P. C. , to a maximum period of 30 days only, either in instalments or otherwise, Trial Court dismissing the prayer to enlarge time by 345 days cannot be said to be erroneous.

( 6 ) I would consider the question if the petition can be treated as one under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 C. P. C. a little later, after adverting to the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petition is filed with a view to drag on the proceedings.

( 7 ) THE case of the revision petitioners in their written statement is that they subscribed to an unregistered chit run by s. Ramudu and K. G. Murthy (shown in the list of witnesses filed by them along with the LA. under revisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document