ORDER
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 09-01-2000, 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 Order16 Rule1 (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 I.A. under revision) and after disputes arose between them i.e. revision petitioners and those two persons, those two persons, in order to spite them, got the suit filed by making use of a blank stamped promissory note signed by them. As per Section 7 of A.P. Chit Funds Act, 1971 (the Act), no person can start chit fund business or conduct auction etc., without obtaining a certificate of commencement from the Registrar. As per Section 56 of the Act, persons contravening or abetting the contravention of any of the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to one year or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. In view thereof, it is doubtful if K.G. Murthy and S.Ramudu, even if they were running an unregistered chit, would swear before the Court that they ran an unregistered chit fund, and violated the provisions of the Act. That apart, even if there is a grain of truth in the contention of the revision petitioners that there is enmity between them and those people and that they got the suit filed through the respondent, those two persons would not, in the normal course of human conduct, admit that fact. If they are friends of revision petitioners only, would they support the case of revision petitioners. Those two persons would not support revision petitioners if they are their enemies.
8. D. Jagadeesh, shown in the list of witnesses filed with the petition under revision, is said to be an employee of K.G. Murthy and S.Ramudu, and is said to have filled in the blanks in the suit promissory note. It is difficult to believe that a person who is working with K.G. Murthy and S.Ramudu, said to be the enemies of revision petitioners, would come and support the case of the revision petitioners. If he were to support the case of revision petitioners, he can only be a friend of the revision petitioners, or might have been won over by them. Friends of revision petitioners only, but not their enemies and their men i.e. men of the enemies would speak in support of the defence taken by them in their written statement.
9. Since no materiel to show that the three persons shown in the list of witnesses had earlier made a statement in support of the defence of the revision petitioners, and since no document in support of the case of revision petitioners is produced, in the event of any of those persons not speaking in support of their case, those persons cannot be declared as hostile, to be cross-examined by revision petitioners, because for a witness to be treated or declared as hostile, there should be some material to show that he made a statement or had done an act in support of the case of the party calling him as a witness at any earlier point of time and is speaking contrary to that statement or act. So, it is prima facie clear that this petition is intended to delay the progress in the trial of the suit.
10. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for respondent that benefit of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 C.P.C. can be invoked only when list of witnesses is filed but not when no list of witnesses is filed. Rule 1A of Order 16 C.P.C. enables a party producing and examining witnesses, without applying for summons, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 C.P.C. In Kailasa Bhoomiah vs. Kailasa eashwaralingam and Ors., 1988 (1) APLJ 268 it is held that filing a list of witnesses within 15 days is not mandatory and that Court, in appropriate cases, can condone the delay and receive the list even after 15 days. At that time there was no embargo on the power of the Court to extend time and so, in the above case, the learned Judge allowed the petition to receive list of witnesses filed ten months after framing of issues. As stated earlier as per Section 148 C.P.C. as it stands now, the Court cannot enlarge the time fixed by it, for doing an act prescribed by the Court beyond 30 days. When filing a list of witnesses is not mandatory, in my considered opinion, summons can be issued to persons to be examined as witness even in cases where no list of witnesses is filed, if the Court is satisfied with the reasons given by the party seeking such relief.
11. Since it is not desirable to shut out evidence, and since the petition appears to have been filed to drag on the proceedings summons can be issues to the three persons shown in the list, by imposing heavy terms on the revision petitioners.
12. On the revision petitioners paying Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as costs to the revision petitioners within one week from today revision petitioners would be permitted to take out summons to the three persons shown in the list filed by them in the I.A.No.214 of 2004 Revision Petitioners should examine all of the three persons summoned as witnesses within a period of one month, without seeking any adjournment. In default petition stands dismissed. No costs. Petition is ordered accordingly. Since the observations made in this order are made only for the purpose of disposal of this petition, the trial Court should dispose of the suit on its merits, without being influenced by the observations made in this order.