1 APHC010076042024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 309 & 310 0f 2024 Between: 1. Morkonda Yellaiah, S/o late Morkonda Ramaiah chetty, aged 83 years, R/o. D. No. 10-288, Padmasalipeta, Srikalahasti town, Tirupati district. ...PETITIONER AND 1. P Munilakshmi, D/o Ramaiah Chetty, W/o. Munikrishnaiah, R/o. D.no. 13-29-36-336, Opp. Post office, Korlagunta, Tirupati. 2. C.Roopavathi, D/o.Morkonda Ramaiah chetty, W/o Dr.C.Maharajan, D.No.7-14, 1st street, Mangalampuram, Tambaram West, Chennai - 600 045, Tamilnadu. 3. C Pottamma Kuppamma, D/o Morkonda Ramaiah chetty, D.No.12- 407, Weavers colony, Narayanavanam - 517 581, Tirupati district. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the order dt. 31.01.2024 made in I.A.No.466/2023 in OS.No.36/2023 on the file of the court of the XII Addl. District Judge, Srikalahasti IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 2 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including trial in OS.No.36 of 2023 on the file of the court of the Xll Addl. District Judge, Srikalahasti, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. AVANIJA INUGANTI The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: The petitioners and the respondents are one and the same in both the civil revision petitions and as both the civil revision petitions are connected they are heard together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. 2. The present civil revision petitions are filed by the defendant questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 31.01.2024 in I.A.No.466 of 2023 and order dated 07.02.2024 in I.A.No.123 of 2024 in O.S.No.36 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the learned XII Addl. District Judge, Srikalahasti. 3. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.36/2023 for partition. In the said suit, when the defendant’s evidence is closed, the defendant filed I.A.No.466/2023 under section 151 of CPC for reopening the suit on behalf of the defendant for the purpose of adducing further evidence and the court below has allowed the said application under its order dated 31.01.2024 subject to condition of filing of all the chief affidavits on behalf of the petitioner/defendant on 07.02.2024. On 07.02.2024, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.123/2024 under Order 17 3 Rule 1 r/w section 151 praying the court to grant 10 days time to produce the attestor whose chief affidavit was filed in the suit and the said application was dismissed by the court below under its order dated 07.02.2024. Assailing the said orders, the present revisions are preferred by the defendant. 4. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Sai Bhargav, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revisions and contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory applications contended that, the petitioner had filed chief affidavit of DW2, however, on the date of filing of chief affidavit, the petitioner/defendant fell sick and his maternal uncle(DW2) died, as such he could not appear before the court below and therefore he filed I.A.No.123/2024 praying the court to grant 10 days time to produce the attestor whose chief affidavit was filed in the suit but the court below has dismissed the said application erroneously on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply the condition imposed in I.A.No.466/2023. He further submitted that, having reopened the evidence of petitioner’s side, the court below ought to have extended further time. If the evidence is not let in, the petitioner’s right to defeat would be affected. Further, the court below had failed to see that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if further time is granted, as such prayed to allow the revisions. 4 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, the suit is of the year 2023 and the parties are aged more than 80 years and by virtue of the interim order granted by this court, the trial was not completed yet in the trial court, however, if this court inclines to interfere, a direction may be given to the court below to fix a particular date for letting in the evidence on defendants side and further requested for a expedite disposal of the suit in view of the age of the parties. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. As could be culled out from the facts and submissions of the case, since the court below has closed the evidence of the defendant on 20.09.2023, the defendant filed I.A.No.466/2023 for reopening the suit on behalf of the defendant for the purpose of adducing further evidence and the court below has allowed the said application under its order dated 31.01.2024 subject to condition of filing of all the chief affidavits on behalf of the petitioner/defendant on 07.02.2024, otherwise the petition shall stand dismissed, but since the petitioner could not filed the chief affidavit in the given time, on 07.02.2024, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.123/2024 under Order 17 Rule 1 r/w section 151 praying the court to grant 10 days time to produce the attestor whose chief affidavit was filed in the suit and the said application was dismissed by the court below under its order dated 07.02.2024 on the ground that the petitioner did not comply the condition imposed in I.A.No.466/2023. 5 Assailing the condition imposed in I.A.No.466/2023 and in dismissing the petition filed for grant of 10 days time, these revisions are filed. 9. The Apex Court in catena of decisions, has held that evidence which the parties want to let in should not be shut casually even though there is delay. In the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: <It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-made of justice and therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself.= 10. In view of the above, the court below ought to have allowed the application by imposing some costs which would compensate the other party for causing delay. However, the court below had failed to give sufficient reasons as to what prejudice would be caused to respondents if further time is extended for producing the chief affidavit. The court below ought to have given a fair opportunity to the defendant to lead the evidence. In view of the same, to advance substantial justice, this court is inclined to set aside the orders of the court below dated 31.01.2024 and 07.02.2024 by imposing costs on the defendant. 11. Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions are allowed and the order dated 31.01.2024 in I.A.No.466 of 2023 and order dated 07.02.2024 in 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 6 I.A.No.123 of 2024 in O.S.No.36 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the learned XII Addl. District Judge, Srikalahasti are hereby set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs within two(02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and file a memo before the court below. The court below shall fix a particular date for filing of the chief affidavit of all the witnesses, if any on the defendant’s side and also fix a date for cross-examination as well and shall proceed further as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the age of the parties who is more than 80 years. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS