APHC010270062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1320 OF 2025 Between: 1. PONNAPALLI VENKATA SATYAVATHI,, W/O SUBBA RAO, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, AGED 49 YEARS, R/O NEAR HIGH SCHOOL, SIVAKODU VILLAGE, RAZOLE MANDAL. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KAYALAPATI ANANTHA LAKSHMI, W/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, BEING REPRESENTED BY THE GPA HOLDER KALAPATI PRASANTH S/O NAGESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED 40 YRS, R/O D.NO. 1-223, KOPPISETTI VARI STREET, NEAR SIVALAYAM PEDAPATNAM, MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL. 2. TURAYI SRI VEKATESWARA RAO, S/O TURAYI DESA SATYANARAYANA, R/O D.NO.1-254, BORUSU VARI STREET, PASARLAPUDI LANKA VILLAGE, MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B VAMSI KRISHNA 2. 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The 2nd Defendant in O.S.No.95 of 2018, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Razole, aggrieved by the orders dated 31.01.2025 in dismissing I.A.No.1183 of 2024, filed the present Revision Petition. 2) The 1st respondent-plaintiff filed the said suit seeking partition of the plaint schedule property situated in R.S.No.108/1A of Pasarlapudi Lanka village against the petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent / 1st defendant. The petitioner / 2nd defendant filed a written statement dated 11.10.2018 and the 2nd respondent / 1st defendant filed a separate written statement and contesting the suit. The petitioner moved the above mentioned Interlocutory Application under Order 16 Rule 7 and Section 151 of CPC to issue witness summons to the Medical Superintendent, KIMS General Hospital, Amalapuram and Panchayat Secretary, Gramapanchayat, Pasarlapudi Lanka village. In the affidavit filed in support of the said Interlocutory Application it was inter alia contended that her father Mr.T.D.Satyanarayana was not hale and healthy and his mental condition was not conscious and coherent at the time of execution of unregistered Will dated 18.08.2011 in favour of the 1st defendant; that he was admitted in KIMS Hospital on 03.12.2011, discharged on 09.12.2011 and therefore, the evidence of Medical Superintendent of KIMS, Amalapuram is vital and crucial. It was further stated that a house bearing Door No.1-254 situated in Pasarlapudi Lanka village, other than the suit schedule property stood in the name of her father and therefore the 3 examination of the Panchayat Secretary, Pasarlapudi Lanka with regard to the house tax payment etc., is required. 3) The 2nd respondent filed his counter and opposed the said application. 4) The learned Trial Judge after considering the matter dismissed the Interlocutory Application. 5) Mr.Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel made submissions to impress upon the Court that summoning of the witnesses as sought for by the petitioner and their examination in the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application is very much vital and crucial to substantiate the case of the petitioner / 2nd defendant that at the time of execution of the alleged unregistered Will dated 18.08.2011 in favour of the 1st defendant / 2nd respondent that father was not in a sound and disposing state of mind. So much so to establish that the petitioner’s father owned other properties i.e., house in the same village, examination of the Secretary, Gram Panchayat is essential. He submits that the learned Trial Judge without considering the said aspects in a proper perspective went wrong in rejecting the application in question. He further submits that by allowing the application no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, as they have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He submits that the petitioner will suffer serious prejudice if the witnesses are not permitted to be examined and accordingly seeks to set aside the order under challenge. 4 6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. He also placed reliance on the decision of learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 09.10.2009 in CRP No.3523 and 4356 of 2009. 7) On consideration of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for determination is “Whether the order under challenge warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case”? 8) As noted earlier, the defendants in the suit filed separate written statements. The petitioner / 2nd defendant in the suit had taken a different stand to that of the 2nd respondent /1st defendant. In the entire written statement filed by the petitioner / 2nd defendant, there is no whisper about the unregistered Will dated 18.08.2011 allegedly executed in favour of the 2nd respondent / 1st defendant, much less any dispute about the health condition of her father at the time of the execution of the same. Nothing is stated about the properties possessed by her father other than the plaint schedule property so as to justify the examination of the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Pasarlapudi Lanka village to substantiate her case. In the absence of any plea in the written statement raising any dispute with reference to the execution of the alleged Will or the aspect of other property stated to have been owned by her father, as rightly held by the learned Trial Court, any evidence without pleading is of no use. In this regard, it is apt to refer the 5 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College1 9) Though the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied on the judgment of the of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 09.10.2009 in CRP No.3523 and 4356 of 2009, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Be that as it may. 10) In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and also in view of the conclusions regarding absence of pleadings in the written statement, this Court holds that there is no illegality or perversity in the order under challenge. 11) Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 12) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:19.09.2025. Ssv 1 AIR 1987 SC1242 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1320 OF 2025 Date:19.09.2025 Ssv