Judgment :- Anim adverting upon the order dated 16. 2008 passed in I.A.No.1238 of 2008 in O.S.No.1090 of 2004 by the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. .2. Concisely and compendiously, the case of the petitioner as stood exposited from the plaint, could be portrayed thus: .The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.1090 of 2004 for recovery of money relating to the goods supplied to them. When the matter was posted for the defendants side for adducing evidence, the defendant approached the Court with I.A.No.1238 of 2008 for summoning the FAB TECH and to produce the original test report and speak about it. However, the trial Court dismissed it by its order dated 7. 2008. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this civil revision petition is filed on various grounds. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant by placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop her argument to the effect that it is the case of the petitioner/defendant that he is not liable to pay any amount, as the goods supplied were substandard in quality. Whereas, the trial Court, in its order at paragraph 5 simply remarked as though such a fact is not germane for deciding the case. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the order and for giving an opportunity to summon the witness and produce the document also. .4. Whereas, the trial Court, in its order at paragraph 5 simply remarked as though such a fact is not germane for deciding the case. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the order and for giving an opportunity to summon the witness and produce the document also. .4. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would put forth his argument to the effect that it is not the case of the petitioner/defendant that the entire goods supplied were returned on the ground that they were substandard in quality; after having succeeded in selling a part of the goods in all the items, now it is too late on the part of the petitioner/defendant to dish out a plea by veering round quite antithetical to his own previous commitment and that too when the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money for the goods supplied;, the petitioner/defendant has come forward with such dubious defence as though the goods were substandard and the fact also remains that part of the goods were returned earlier by the petitioner/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff and it was accepted by the respondent/plaintiff on the ground of business faith and not on the ground that the goods were substandard in nature; and at that time, the petitioner/defendant had not chosen to return the entire goods and as such, purely for the purpose of protracting the proceedings, the petitioner/defendant has chosen to file the said application, which was correctly dismissed by the lower Court. 5. When all said and done, considering the pro et contra, in this factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that one more opportunity could be given to the petitioner/defendant to put forth his defence factually, by summoning the witness with the test report. 6. Considering the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2004 and so far the petitioner/defendant has not chosen to obtain the test report and only the petitioner/defendant was in receipt of a fax message relating to the result of the test report, the respondent/plaintiff should not be made to suffer because of the delay on the part of the respondent/plaintiff in securing the report as well as in examining the witness. I am also of the view that the case of the petitioner/defendant is that in view of the alleged inferior quality of the goods, he refrained from paying the amount and therefore, due opportunity should be given to prove his plea and it is for the Court to ultimately decide whether such plea is justifiable or not and it is pre-matured to decide that the test report is totally irrelevant for the case. Hence, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the following direction is issued: 7. The petitioner/defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as cost to the respondent within a week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, whereupon, the lower Court shall issue summons to the witness concerned to produce the test report and to depose on it and within a time frame of six weeks from the date of receipt, the judgment shall be pronounced on merits. 8. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.