Heard Sri P.Srinivasa Reddy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel representing the first respondent.

2. Sri Srinivasa Reddy representing the revision petitioner-first defendant would contend that normally summoning the witness along with the records to be allowed and the reasons which had been recorded by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, are totally unsustainable reasons. The learned counsel also had taken this court through certain factual details and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal could have given an opportunity to the revision petitioner by allowing the application. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of this court in GUPALA KRISHNA MURTHY VS. B.RAMCHANDER RAO AND OTHERS(1).

3. Per Contra, Sri Rama Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel representing the first respondent-plaintiff would submit that several of the facts are not in controversy and this application is thought of only to further delay the matter and in a way it can be said that this application is a frivolous a