MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) ORDER passed in LA. No. 476 of 1999 in o. S, No. 70 of 1995 dated 7-9-1999 by the junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

( 2 ) PETITIONER is the first defendant in the said suit O. S. No. 70 of 1995 filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein for declaration of plaint schedule properties. Written statements have also been filed on behalf of the defendants. However, the first defendant who is the petitioner in this revision has filed LA. No. 476 of 1999 under order 16 Rule 14 CPC requiring the Court below to summon the second plaintiff in the suit either as a Court witness or as a witness on his behalf (petitioner/first defendant s behalf) in order to elicit certain information with regard to the suit schedule properties.

( 3 ) THE Court below dismissed the said LA. No. 476 of 1999 by the impugned order dated 7-9-1999 holding that summoning of a party to the suit proceedings as a witness by the other party on his behalf is unknown to law, against which this revision is filed.

( 4 ) I have heard Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 7-9-1999 passed by the Court below.

( 5 )

Click Here to Read the rest of this document