APHC010684022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the Eighth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petitions Nos: 3762 and 3763 of 2025 Between: D.L. Narasimha Rao ...Petitioner and Mangu Annapurna Devi (died) and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Kristam Sakthi Niranjan Guptha Counsel for the respondents: 1. Sai Manoj Reddy L. 2. B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.3762 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.11.2025 dismissing I.A.No.521 of 2025 in O.S.No.78 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadiri, filed by the plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 14(3) of C.P.C. to grant leave to the petitioner to file the following list of documents: Sl. No. Date of Document Name of Beneficiary / Purchaser Extent (Acres / Sq. Yds.) Door No. / Asst. No. / Remarks 1 25-12-2009 Pallepu Ramakrishna 0-02.5 Acs. D.No.2A/191 2 - S. Mumtaz 0-01.75 Acs. D.No.3A/501 3 07-02-1994 T. Mahaboob Basha 0-01.75 Acs. D.No.3/137 4 31-08-2009 Rasaputra Kande Bai 0-01.75 Acs. D.No.3A/575 5 16-03-2002 Anke Rajyalakshmi 0-01.75 Acs. Asst. No.79 6 12-05-2011 Anke Lakshmi Devi 0-01.75 Acs. - 7 12-05-2011 Gujjala Venkatrayudu 0-01.75 Acs. - 8 01-10-2022 Shaik Khaja Bi 0-01.75 Acs. - 9 22-02-1994 C.S. Showkath Ali 0-01.75 Acs. - 10 19-02-2002 P. Mumtaz 0-02.5 Acs. - 11 16-08-2002 Attar Allabakash & others 0-07.5 Acs. - 12 19-02-2002 S. Shahan 0-02.5 Acs. - 13 - Sumiya 0-01.75 Acs. - 14 - P. Anjana Reddy 0-05.00 Acs. - 15 - P. Nageswara 0-02.5 Acs. - 16 - Akkamma 0-02.5 Acs. - 17 - T.S. Shazida 0-01.75 Acs. - 18 - C.S. Sikandar 0-02.0 Acs. - 19 - Shaik Mahaboob Jan 0-01.75 Acs. - 20 - Jowhar Jan 0-01.75 Acs. - 21 - B. Lakshmi Devi 0-01.75 Acs. - 22 - P. Anjana Reddy 0-01.75 Acs. - 23 07-08-2003 Raguri Gangulappa 0-02.0 Acs. D.No.15/2 24 - S. Ramana Reddy 0-02.5 Acs. - 25 21-02-2002 P. Chinna Obula Reddy 0-12.5 Acs. - 26 18-01-2008 Bokula Rama Mohan 121 sq. yds. - 27 01-10-2001 Shaik Rahamathunnisa 121 sq. yds. - 28 22-02-1994 Shaik Baba Fakruddin Sab 60 sq. yds. - 29 05-02-1994 Busannagari Uthama Reddy 121 sq. yds. - 30 03-02-1994 P. Chinna Obula Reddy 62.2 sq. yds. - 3 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 31 31-12-2001 S. Hussain Peeran 114.83 sq. yds. - 32 19-02-2002 Patan Yusuf Khan 116.16 sq. yds. - 33 04-02-1994 S.J. Allabakash 60 sq. yds. - 34 22-12-2007 Sabavath Venkataramana Naik 114.66 sq. yds. - 35 21-03-1994 S.J. Fakruddin 60 sq. yds. - 36 07-02-1994 S. Sheeran Taj Begum 120 sq. yds. - 37 07-02-1994 S.J. Fakruddin 60 sq. yds. - 38 05-02-1994 B. Bhaskar Reddy 121 sq. yds. - 39 07-02-1994 C.S. Abdul Rawoof 60 sq. yds. - 40 15-03-2002 P. Ramanamma 0-07.5 Acs. - 41 10-07-1998 Govt. of A.P. rep. by health department 0-67 - 42 14-02-1996 Govt. of A.P. rep. by Forest department 0-05 - 43 06-01-1999 Govt. of A.P. rep. by MPP 0-10 - 2. C.R.P.No.3763 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.11.2025 in I.A.No.522 of 2025 in the aforesaid O.S.No.78 of 2007, filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen his evidence to produce the following documents: Sl. No. Date of Document Name of Beneficiary / Purchaser Extent (Acres / Sq. Yds.) Door No. / Asst. No. / Remarks 1 25-12-2009 Pallepu Ramakrishna 0-02.5 Acs. D.No.2A/191 2 - S. Mumtaz 0-01.75 Acs. D.No.3A/501 3 - T. Mahaboob Basha 0-01.75 Acs. D.No.3/137 4 - Rasaputra Kande Bai 0-01.75 Acs. D.No.3A/575 5 16-03-2002 Anke Rajyalakshmi 0-01.75 Acs. Asst. No.79 6 12-05-2011 Anke Lakshmi Devi 0-01.75 Acs. - 7 12-05-2011 Gujjala Venkatrayudu 0-01.75 Acs. - 8 01-10-2022 Shaik Khaja Bi 0-01.75 Acs. - 9 22-02-1994 C.S. Showkath Ali 0-01.75 Acs. - 10 19-02-2002 P. Mumtaz 0-02.5 Acs. - 11 - Attar Allabakash & others 0-07.5 Acs. - 12 - S. Shahan 0-02.5 Acs. - 13 - Sumiya 0-01.75 Acs. - 14 - P. Anjana Reddy 0-05.00 Acs. - 15 - P. Nageswara 0-02.5 Acs. - 16 - Akkamma 0-02.5 Acs. - 17 - T.S. Shazida 0-01.75 Acs. - 4 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 18 - C.S. Sikandar 0-02.0 Acs. - 19 - Shaik Mahaboob Jan 0-01.75 Acs. - 20 - Jowhar Jan 0-01.75 Acs. - 21 - B. Lakshmi Devi 0-01.75 Acs. - 22 - P. Anjana Reddy 0-01.75 Acs. - 23 - Raguri Gangulappa 0-02.0 Acs. - 24 - S. Ramana Reddy 0-02.5 Acs. - 25 21-02-2002 P. Chinna Obula Reddy 0-12.5 Acs. - 26 18-01-2008 Bokula Rama Mohan 121 sq. yds. - 27 01-10-2001 Shaik Rahamathunnisa 121 sq. yds. - 28 22-02-1994 Shaik Baba Fakruddin Sab 60 sq. yds. - 29 05-02-1994 Busannagari Uthama Reddy 121 sq. yds. - 30 03-02-1994 P. Chinna Obula Reddy 62.2 sq. yds. - 31 31-12-2001 S. Hussain Peeran 114.83 sq. yds. - 32 19-02-2002 Patan Yusuf Khan 116.16 sq. yds. - 33 04-02-1994 S.J. Allabakash 60 sq. yds. - 34 22-12-2007 Sabavath Venkataramana Naik 114.66 sq. yds. - 35 21-03-1994 S.J. Fakruddin 60 sq. yds. - 36 07-02-1994 S. Sheeran Taj Begum 120 sq. yds. - 37 07-02-1994 S.J. Fakruddin 60 sq. yds. - 38 05-02-1994 B. Bhaskar Reddy 121 sq. yds. - 39 07-02-1994 C.S. Abdul Rawoof 60 sq. yds. - 40 15-03-2002 P. Ramanamma 0-07.5 Acs. - 3. The revision petitioner filed the suit against the respondent No.1 / sole defendant for declaration of title and permanent injunction not to alienate the following suit schedule properties: Description of the properties situated within the Registration District of Anantapur and Sub-Registration District of Kadiri, Gandlapenta revenue village and mandalam: Sl. No. Classification Survey No. Extent. Ac. Cts. Market value. Rs. 1 Govt. Dry 1267 7-55 2,49,150-00 2 -do- 898 8-02 Paiki 4-01 92,230-00 3 -do- 967-1 0-03 1,230-00 4 -do- 978-2 0-31 Paiki 0-15½ 3,565-00 5 -do- 977 0-84 19,320-00 5 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 Description of the properties situated within the Registration District of Anantapur and Sub-Registration District of Kadiri, limits of Somayajulapalli village and mandalam: Sl. No. Classification Survey No. Extent. Ac. Cts. Market value. Rs. 6 Govt. Dry 36 1-22 28,060-00 7 -do- 37 2-02 Paiki 1-01 66,660-00 8 -do- 38 0-93 21,390-00 9 -do- 85 4-30 Paiki 2-15 4,38,600-00 10 -do- 200-2 0-10 5,600-00 4. The case of the plaintiff is, briefly stated, as follows: a. The suit schedule properties originally belong to Smt. K. Chinna Narasamma wife of Lakshminarayana Rao. D.L.Narasinga Rao is the grandfather of the plaintiff. Smt. K. Chinna Narasamma is neice of D.L.Narasinga Rao. After marriage of K. Chinna Narasamma, she left for Bukkapatnam and settled with her husband there. The grandfather of the plaintiff looked after K. Chinna Narasamma and her properties on her behalf. Her husband predeceased her. b. K. Chinna Narasamma also died on 24.11.1967 issueless. She had love and affection for the plaintiff. When she was in sound and disposing state of mind, out of her will and affection, she executed a will dated 16.10.1967 bequeathing all her properties to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff became an absolute owner of the suit schedule properties on the death of K. Chinna Narasamma. He continued to hold possession of the properties through his father when he was minor and subsequently on attaining majority, he himself came into possession and has been exercising his right over the properties. The grandfather, father of the plaintiff and subsequent to them, the plaintiff, have paid land revenue for 6 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 the schedule mentioned properties. Entries in the revenue records are mutated to the name of the plaintiff with regard to the plaint schedule properties. c. The defendants have no manner of right, title or possession over any portion of the plaint schedule properties at any point of time. There are ill-feelings between the plaintiff and the defendants. With a view to harass the plaintiff, the defendant has been trying to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by the plaintiff. As such, he filed O.S.No.296 of 1997 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadiri against the defendant. The defendant contested that suit on basis of „will‟ allegedly executed by K. Chinna Narasamma in favour of the defendant and questioned the maintainability of the suit in O.S.No.296 of 1997. So, this comprehensive suit was filed seeking declaration of title. d. Due to intervention of the close relatives, the plaintiff and the defendants came to an understanding and filed a memo not pressing the suit for the time being by reserving right to file fresh suit in case of failure to reach an amicable settlement of the disputes. Without considering the memo, the Court, by its judgment dated 26.12.2003, dismissed the suit with costs, without giving any permission to file a fresh suit. Aggrieved by the judgment, the revision petition in C.R.P.No.3090 of 2004 was filed before this Court. The judgment dated 26.12.2003 was set aside by the order in the revision petition dated 28.04.2006 and directed the trial Court to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order after hearing both the parties. e. At the time of filing the plaint in this suit, when the matter is still pending for consideration of the memo, taking advantage of the order 7 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 dated 26.12.2003, the defendant made a false representation before the revenue authorities and tried to manipulate the revenue records. Without affording an opportunity to the plaintiff by the revenue authorities, mutations in the records were affected. Hence, they are illegal. The plaintiff is entitled to ignore the same. Basing on such records, the defendant is trying to lay false claims to the plaint schedule properties and hastening to alienate the properties and create nominal collusive documents. So, this suit was filed. 5. The sole defendant filed a written statement with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: a. It is true that the suit schedule properties originally belong to K. Chinna Narasamma wife of K.L. Narayana Rao of Bukkapatnam Village. It is not correct that K. Chinna Narasamma was the niece of the grandfather of the plaintiff. K. Chinna Narasamma has Sthreedhana properties at Gandlapenta, having acquired them from her parents being the only daughter to her parents. She left for Bukkapatnam immediately after her marriage. There is no nexus between the plaintiff‟s ancestors and K. Chinna Narasamma. She lost her parents in and about 1925. Since then, she was residing in Bukkapatnam with her husband till he died in the year 1963. She died on 24.11.1967 without any issue is not correct. b. It is not correct that out of love and affection she had executed „will‟ dated 16.10.1967 in favour of the plaintiff with her free will, volition and disposing state of mind. It is false that K. Chinna Narasamma was under the care and protection of the grandfather, father of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff enjoyed the properties after the death of K. Chinna Narasamma and that the entries in the revenue records were mutated to 8 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 his name. It is utterly false that the defendant is stranger to the suit schedule properties and that due to bitter differences between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff was harassed and so the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.296 of 1997. c. The pleadings regarding filing of memo are also denied. The plaintiff suppressed all the material facts. The sole defendant is the only daughter of the K.L. Narayana Rao. He had no male issue. K. Chinna Narasamma is the first wife of K.L. Narayana Rao and she could not begot any children. Therefore, he married Rama Lakshmamma. Thus, the defendant is the daughter of K.L. Narayana Rao through Rama Lakshmamma. Both the wives lived together till the death of K.L. Narayana Rao. All the properties of the family, including suit schedule properties, were in possession and enjoyment of K.L. Narayana Rao and his wives and the defendant. K.L. Narayana Rao gave a declaration before the Tahsildar, Penukonda that the defendant, her husband, children have been living with him along with his two wives. Even after his death, they continued to live together. K. Chinna Narasamma and Rama Lakshmamma and the defendant executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the husband of the defendant by name Mangu Gopala Krishna Murthy Rao for the management of the family properties, including the suit schedule properties. Thus, the properties of the family were being managed by the husband of the defendant. d. Neither the plaintiff nor the father or grandfather was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. K. Chinna Narasamma executed a will dated 24.11.1967 in favour of this defendant in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing all her properties, including suit schedule properties, in the presence of P.Chinnamma and C.Veeranjinappa of Bukkapatnam. She died on the very same day. 9 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 Immediately thereafter, the defendant became the owner of the suit schedule properties. Thus, the defendant has been exercising the right over the suit schedule properties and possessed them. The „will‟ executed in favour of the defendant is the only „will‟ executed by the deceased. e. The plaintiff set up a forged will dated 16.10.1967. The deceased had no love and affection for the plaintiff. The deceased had no occasion to execute a will in favour of the plaintiff as K. Chinna Narasamma was looked after by the defendant and her husband till her death. The plaintiff is a veteran litigant and well versed in litigation. He has been demanding the defendant and her husband to alienate the suit schedule properties. As they refused, the plaintiff tried to fabricate the revenue records to set up a false claim. The plaintiff is the landlord having extensive properties at Gandlapenta and highly influential. The defendant could not resist the influence of the plaintiff or the revenue officials. The plaintiff went upon creating all types of problems to knock away the suit schedule properties. f. The suit is barred under Order II, Rule 2 C.P.C. due to pendency of the suit in O.S.No.296 of 1997. Having found that the plaintiff had no case to prosecute, he wanted to not press the suit in O.S.No.296 of 1997 to avoid costs in the suit, however, again filed the frivolous suit. The plaintiff sold away some properties pending litigation, out of certain extent of properties covered by suit schedule items Nos.1 and 2, through his power of attorney Poreddi Anjana Reddy in favour of Chinna Obula Reddy, P.Mahammad Yusuf Khan, A. Inayathulla, A. Allabakash, P.Mumtaj and A.Anwar Basha. All these persons are proper and necessary parties to the suit, as such the suit is bad for their non-joinder. 10 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 6. Pending the suit, since the sole defendant died, her legal representatives were brought on record as defendants Nos.2 to 9. 7. The defendant No.8 alone filed a separate written statement while reiterating the facts already stated by the deceased defendant, with further averments, stated briefly as follows: a. The sole defendant / Mangu Annapoorna Devi executed a will on 07.08.2012 in favour of this defendant in a sound and disposing state of mind out of her will and love bequeathing her entire estate at N.P. Kunta and Gandlapenta Mandals and the said will is her last testament. Mangu Annapoorna Devi died on 15.08.2012. Thus, on her death, the will came into existence. This defendant has been exercising his right of possession of the property since the death of the defendant No.1. Entries in the revenue records are under consideration. b. This defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.173 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadiri against Poreddy Anjana Reddy (power of attorney of the plaintiff and others) seeking permanent injunction with regard to the lands in survey Nos.898 and 1267 of Gandlapenta Revenue Village, which are shown as items Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties in O.S.No.78 of 2007. The suit was decreed on 03.11.2020. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 8. At the stage of arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.521 of 2025 stating that the evidence of the plaintiff was formally closed in the year 2001, however, the suit went on adjourned several times for various reasons including the death of sole defendant and bringing on record her legal representatives and that the list mentioned documents are necessary as evidence in the suit. The petitioner executed them in favour of the departments of the government and public bodies through 11 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 gift deeds and the sale deeds and that in the cross examination of the witnesses for the defendants, the plaintiff attempted to confirm these documents, but the witnesses declined to admit the truth and therefore, it is necessary to grant leave to the petitioner to adduce evidence of these documents to prove the transactions there-under. The petitioner further pleaded that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if leave is granted and that the petition was filed with bona fide intention and not to protract the litigation. 9. The petition was opposed by filing the counter of the respondents denying the averments in the petition and further stating that there is no need to grant leave to the petitioner as he had taken a lot of time to adduce evidence since the year 2001 and that the documents were brought into existence to buttress the case of false claim and these documents are not valid and binding and moreover the petitioner filed the suit on the basis of a „will‟ and witnesses of the defendants were already examined at length and the suit is now ripe for arguments. 10. Another petition in I.A.No.522 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen his evidence to produce certified copies of 40 documents mentioned above with the similar averments in I.A.No.521 of 2025. 11. The petition was opposed by the respondents as is opposed in I.A.No.521 of 2025. 12. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petitions, mainly stating that no genuine reason was shown by the petitioner for not producing 40 documents for a long period of 18 years, though the evidence was completed in the year 2001 and the documents sought to be filed are public documents and very much available. 12 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 13. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petitions, these revision petitions are filed. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the delay alone influenced the Court to dismiss the petition, but the delay cannot be attributed solely to the petitioner as, after the death of the sole defendant, it took long time for impleading the legal representatives whose addresses were not known and for such other reasons, but the petition was dismissed without considering the fact that the proposed documents were very much necessary to establish that the plaintiff exercised right and title over the plaint schedule properties and some portion of the plaint schedule properties were alienated under these documents, but the defendants have not challenged or questioned the alienations. Therefore, he contends that it is the burden of the plaintiff to establish a case for securing the relief for declaration of title not only over the „will‟ but also the other facts relating to exercise of right and possession over the plaint schedule properties. He further explained how the delay occurred in bringing the legal representatives on record. It is also submitted by him that the delay occurred further due to clubbing of previous suit in O.S.No.296 of 1997 which was renumbered as O.S.No.26 of 2010 after it was clubbed with suit in O.S.No.78 of 2007 and that after clubbing of the said suits, no further opportunity was given to the petitioner / plaintiff to lead evidence on his behalf and it is just before filing of the petition, there was an occasion to file the petition and thus, the very long delay shown as a reason to oppose the petition is not true. Therefore, he contended that for just and complete adjudication of the dispute and to enable the plaintiff to place all the necessary evidence on record it is just and necessary to allow the petition. 13 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.8 contended that the main requirement for grant of leave under Order VII, Rule 14 C.P.C. have not been complied with by the petitioner and moreover there was long delay in filing the petition and therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. He further submitted that since the right of the plaintiff is mainly based on alleged will dated 16.10.1967, these documents have no bearing more particularly they are not supported by any pleading in the plaint. So, he requested to dismiss the revision petition. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.K.Velusamy Vs. N.Palanisamy 1, wherein at paragraphs Nos.19 and 20 it was held as follows: “19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly if the application is found to be mischievous, 1 (2011) 11 SCC 275 14 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. 20. If the application is allowed and the evidence is permitted and ultimately the court finds that evidence was not genuine or relevant and did not warrant the reopening of the case recalling the witnesses, it can be made a ground for awarding exemplary costs apart from ordering prosecution if it involves fabrication of evidence. If the party had an opportunity to produce such evidence earlier but did not do so or if the evidence already led is clear and unambiguous, or if it comes to the conclusion that the object of the application is merely to protract the proceedings, the court should reject the application. If the evidence sought to be produced is an electronic record, the court may also listen to the recording before granting or rejecting the application.” 16. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bagai Construction Vs. Gupta Building Material Store 2, wherein previous decision of K.K.Velusamy (supra) was referred. He further relied on the decision of this Court in Koruprolu Nagaraju (died) Vs. Lanka Rambabu3, wherein at paragraphs Nos.11 and 12, it was held as follows: “11.On perusing the entire material available on record and in the light of the judgments cited above, this Court observed that, the present case is also similarly situated petitioners. The suit is filed in the year 2008, thereafter, on several occasions, 2 (2013) 14 SCC 1 3 C.R.P.Nos.1380 and 1381 of 2016, dated 23.09.2023 15 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 the matter was adjourned. The simple reason mentioned in the petition that the documents are not available at the time of petitioner‟s evidence and he could trace them is not sufficient to grant leave to the petitioner to file the said documents after lapse of long time, without necessary details like when and how they were traced and where they were traced. Further, there is no explanation is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners / D1 to D6 how the proposed documents are relevant to determine the issues on hand. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the submissions of both the counsels, this Court observed that, the principles laid down in the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. It is also settled principle of law that unless the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error or patent perversity, the power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service. Therefore, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation nor any shadow of doubt to hold that the orders under challenge do not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.” 17. The learned counsel for the respondent No.9, though has not contested before the trial Court, argued that the revision petition deserves to be dismissed as the requirements of the Order VII, Rule 14 C.P.C. have not been complied. He further submitted that even after adding the legal representatives and after completion of the defendant‟s 16 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 evidence, there was opportunity to the petitioner to immediately file a petition, but no such step was taken. He further submitted that the witnesses for defendants have been already cross-examined even with regard to the proposed documents and therefore, there is no need to allow the petition. 18. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of the written statement of the defendant No.8, the trial Court directly posted the matter for the defendant‟s evidence and no further opportunity was given to the plaintiff to lead evidence, in spite of framing of additional issues. He further submitted that the respondent No.9 has not opposed the petition before the trial Court, but argued before this Court just to oppose the relief without having any right to oppose. 19. Though the right of the plaintiff is based on the „will‟, the documents proposed may have bearing on the right enforced which is also a consideration to understand whether the „will‟ was acted upon and for how long the exercise of the right in pursuance of the „will‟ was not objected by the persons who are legal heirs in the absence of the „will‟ etc. It is to be noted that the affidavit filed in support of the petition is inadequate about the details required to show the relevance of these documents to the facts in issue with reference to each document. Similarly, the affidavit is not completely disclosing the reasons required to be assigned as per Order XIV, Rule 7 C.P.C. For the purpose of adjudicating the case on merits, it is necessary to direct the petitioner to file a better affidavit with all such needed information. When there is enormous evidence relating to the genuine dispute between the parties, shutting the doors of leading evidence on mechanical grounds would not allow a Court to render justice on merits. As such, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have directed the petitioner to furnish all 17 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 such details before numbering the petition by directing to file better affidavit, if required. Therefore, it is required to set aside the impugned order and rehear the matter on merits. 20. In the result, C.R.P.No.3762 of 2025 is allowed setting aside the order, dated 13.11.2025, in I.A.No.521 of 2025 with a direction to the trial Court to receive the additional affidavit of the petitioner, as aforesaid, and decide the petition afresh after giving opportunity to the contesting parties to file additional counter, if any requested. 21. As a consequence of order in C.R.P.No.3762 of 2025, C.R.P.No.3763 of 2025 is allowed setting aside the order, dated 13.11.2025 in I.A.No.522 of 2025, with similar directions as in C.R.P.No.3762 of 2025. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dated: 08.04.2026 NSM / RAR 18 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.3762 and 3763 of 2025 245 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petitions Nos: 3762 and 3763 of 2025 Dated: 08.04.2026 NSM