Since both these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the interlocutory applications filed consequent on the dismissal of one after the other in the same suit, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff.

3. C.R.P.No.5096 of 2008 is filed challenging the order, dated 11.9.2008, in I.A.No.398 of 2008 in O.S.No.1 of 2002, dismissing the application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C., seeking to issue summons to the proposed witness, by name Sri Ch.V. Satyanarayana to be examined as a Court witness.

4. C.R.P.No.1284 of 2009 is filed challenging the order, dated 18.11.2008, in I.A.No.435 of 2008 in O.S.No.1 of 2002, dismissing the application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 and Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to receive the additional written statement.

5. In both the civil revision petitions, the petitioner is defendant and the respondent is plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.1 of 2002.

6. For the sake of convenience, in this common order, the parties are referred to as per their array in the suit before the Court below.

7. The case of the p