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 application for the reason that there is no foundation in the pleadings relating to the case which now the revision petitioner intends to build up and in view of the lack of pleadings, the question of adducing any evidence in that direction would not be of any help to resolve any controversy whatsoever involved in the suit. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decisions in BANDI NARSAIAH (DIED) AND OTHERS VS. VIRABATHINI MALLESHAM AND ANOTHER(2), VINOD KUMAR ARORA VS. SMT.SURJIT KAUR(3) and RAM SARUP GUPTA (DEAD) BY L.RS VS. BISHUN NARAIN INTER COLLEGE AND OTHERS

(4).

4. This court ordered notice before admission in the matter and granted interim stay for a period of two weeks. The revision petitionerfirst defendant in O.S.No.120 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, had preferred the C.R.P. as against the order made in I.A.No.823 of 2006 in the aforesaid suit dated 21.8.2006. The application was filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon the witness along with records. The stand taken by the revision petitioner-applicant in I.A.No.823 of 2006 in O.S.No.120 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, is that the first respondent - plaintiff denied the hand writing and signatures of his son N.Sreedhar Babu, who scribed chequesExs. B.7 to B.18 and had narrated certain details in relation thereto. The application was resisted by filing a counter in detail. The learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, after framing the point for consideration, discussed certain of the factual details inclusive of certain portions of the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that this application cannot be allowed mainly on the ground that the stand now being taken is not supported by the pleadings and also on yet another ground that two reliefs being prayed in the application and such application also cannot be maintained. The learned counsel representing the revision petitioner placed strong reliance on the decision of this court in Gopala Krishna Murthy Vs. S.Ramachander Rao and others ( 1 supra), wherein the learned judge of this court at Para 9 observed as hereunder:

“A reading of the above authorities leads me to lay down the following propositions:

(1) Under Order 16 Rule 1, Civil P, C, it is the right of the party at any stage of the Suit to make an application to the Court seeking that summons be issued to a witness either to give evidence or to produce documents

(2) The Court is not entitled to refuse such an application on the ground that it might cause delay in the trial of the suit on the adjourned date of the suit,

(3) If the summons is not served by the adjourned date of the suit the party who filed the application to issue the summons Would take the