1 APHC010065562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 352/2025 Between: 1. Smt l Anasuya, W/o. Late l.Ethirajulu Naidu, Aged about 72 years, R/o. Mutharapalli village, thavanampalli mandal, Chittoor district. ...PETITIONER AND 1. K Chengamma Naidu, (Died). 2. K Jayaprada, W/o. Late K.Chengama naidu, Aged about 59 years, occ. House wife, R/o. D.no.2-621/1, Santhinagar Colony, Phase I, chittoor. 3. K R Padmavathy, D/o. Late K.Chengama Naidu aged about 39 years, R/o. D.No.2-621/1, Santhinagar Colony, Phase I, Chittoor. 4. K R V Prasad, s/o. Late K.Chengama Naidu, aged about 35 years. Rep by its power of attorney holder and brother 5. K R Sudhir, S/o. Late K.Chengama naidu, occ. Employee, R/o. D.No.2- 621/1, Santhinagar colony, Phase I, Chittoor. 6. Smt L.Jagadamba Died, S 7. B S Balakrishnama Naidu died, S 8. B Kasthuri, W/o. B. Balakrishna Naidu, aged about 69 years, R/o. Mutharapalli village, Thavanampalli mandal, chittoor district. 9. V.Naga Bhushana, W/o.V.Chandrasekhar Naidu, Aged about 58 years, 2 R/o. Flat no. 3, 3rd floor, Cross Bhuvaneshwari nagar, bangalore. 10. B Ramani, W/o. B.R.Mohan Kumar, aged about 50 years, R/o. D.No. 17-54, Marvel infinity, 33rd cross, 1th main Banasankari ii stage, bangalore. 11. B Santhosh, S/o. B.S.Balakrishnan Naidu, aged about 48 years, occ. Cultivation, R/o. Setteri village, Thumbakuppam post, Bangarupalyam mandal, chittoor district. 12. B Sandip, S/o. B.S.Balakrishnan Naidu, aged about 46 years, occ. Business, R/o.Mutharapalle village, Patnam post, Thavanampalle Mandal, Chittoor 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 allow the present C.R.P. by setting aside the Order and Decree passed l.A.NO.438 OF 2024 IN O.S.NO. 262 OF 2002 dated 20.09.2024 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chittoor and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.262/2002 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chittoor, pending disposal of the above CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MULLAPUDI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA 2. 3 The court made the following order: The present civil revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.09.2024 in I.A.No.438/2024 in O.S.No.262 of 2002 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge (senior division), Chittoor District. 2. The brief averments of this revision petition are summarized as under: The petitioner is the 3rd defendant, respondent nos.2 to 5 are the plaintiffs and the respondent nos.6 to 12 are defendants in the suit vide O.S.No.262/2002 filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. In the said suit, the petitioner herein/3rd defendant (and LR of one of the defendants) filed I.A.No.438/2024 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case and to receive her chief-affidavit as DW6 on the ground that after cross- examination of DW5, without giving any opportunity to her, the matter was posted for arguments on 19.06.2024. The court below, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the said application on the ground of delay under its order dated 20.09.2024. Assailing the said order, the present revision came to be filed. 3. Heard Sri C.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. Despite service of notice, there was no representation on behalf of other respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of the revision and the contents of the affidavit filed 4 before the court below contended that, originally the respondent nos.1 & 2 only filed the suit O.S.No.262/2002, later after the death of 1st respondent, respondent nos.2 to 5 were brought on record as plaintiffs. He further submitted that, the 1st defendant died and the petitioner herein was brought on record as 3rd defendant (LR to the 1st defendant). He further submitted that, after cross-examination of DW5, without examining the petitioner as DW6, the court below has posted the matter for arguments on 19.06.2024, as such the petitioner filed I.A.No.438/2024 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case and to receive her chief-affidavit as DW6 but the court below has dismissed the said application on the ground of delay. He further submitted that, if the said application is not allowed and the chief affidavit of the petitioner is not received, it would affect the rights of the petitioner. In support of his contentions he relied on judgment laid down by the Apex court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma1 wherein it was held that even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself. The said observations can be applied to adducing evidence also. Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent reported no objection for receiving the chief affidavit of the petitioner and allowing the civil revision petition. 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 5 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of the both the learned counsel. 7. A perusal of the record would show that, though the petitioner herein is the 3rd defendant to the original suit, without examining her, the court below has posted the matter for arguments after the evidence of DW5. In the said circumstances, the petitioner herein had filed I.A.No.438/2024 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the case and to receive her chief-affidavit as DW6 but the court below has dismissed the said application on the ground of delay and that the court below did not find any bonafideness on the part of the petitioner and reasons to allow the said application. 8. Legal representatives of a deceased defendant would step into the shoes of the deceased and can be examined to defend the suit, provided they stick to the legal position of the original defendant. While the deceased’s testimony stands, the LRs can be examined to provide further evidence relevant to the estate or to clarify the already pleaded case. In the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma (supra 1) 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.” 8. The Apex Court has also held that evidence should not be shut on the ground of delay. The court below has failed to look into the said well settled 6 principle while adjudicating the I.A.No.438/2024 and dismissed the application erroneously. The court below has failed to see that no prejudice will be caused to the parties if the petitioner herein is examined and her chief affidavit is received. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, the order dated 20.09.2024 in I.A.No.438/2024 is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the CRP is allowed and the order dated 20.09.2024 in I.A.No.438/2024 in O.S.No.262/2002 is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.438/2024 is allowed. The trial court is directed to fix a particular date for filing of chief affidavit and for cross-examination of the petitioner herein and proceed accordingly without granting any further time. It is made clear that the parties should co-operate with the trial. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS