APHC010472512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: 1. PADALA SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O D.No.8-160, OPP. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION PETROL BUNK, BICCAVOLU ROAD, G. MAMIDADA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) 1. SATHI SATHI REDDY, S/O SURAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 1 PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) . 2. SATHI SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O.SURAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 1 PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 3. SABEELLA CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, S/O SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 14 L.N.PURAM, G.MAMIDADA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) 4. KARRI SRI VENKAT REDDY, S YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 3 G.MAMIDADA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2367 of 2025 PADALA SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, 160, OPP. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION PETROL BUNK, BICCAVOLU ROAD, G. MAMIDADA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER AND SATHI SATHI REDDY, S/O SURAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 1-106, G.MAMIDADA VILLAGE, MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) . SATHI SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O.SURAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 1-106, G.MAMIDADA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). SABEELLA CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, S/O SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 14 L.N.PURAM, G.MAMIDADA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) KARRI SRI VENKAT REDDY, S/O BASIVI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 3 G.MAMIDADA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA PADALA SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, 160, OPP. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION PETROL BUNK, BICCAVOLU ROAD, G. MAMIDADA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER SATHI SATHI REDDY, S/O SURAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 106, G.MAMIDADA VILLAGE, MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST SATHI SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O.SURAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 106, G.MAMIDADA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST SABEELLA CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, S/O SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO. 14-7, L.N.PURAM, G.MAMIDADA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) /O BASIVI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 3-103/2, G.MAMIDADA VILLAGE, PEDAPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA 2 DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 5. TETLA AMARANATH REDDY, S/O SATYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 4-56/3, SRINIVASA NAGAR, VAKALAPUDI, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.A.K.KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr.A.S.C.BOSE 3 The Court made the following Order: The present Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 04.09.2025 in I.A.No.651 of 2025 in O.S.No.232 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakinada. 2. The petitioner / plaintiff filed the said suit seeking to declare that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction against the respondents / defendants and their henchmen etc., restraining them from interfering with the plaint ‘B’ schedule property. The respondents / defendants filed written statement and contesting the suit. The petitioner filed the said I.A., seeking to reopen the petitioners’ side evidence. The respondents / defendants resisted the I.A., by filing the counter-affidavit. The learned Trial Judge vide Order impugned in the Revision Petition, dismissed the I.A. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the order under revision, points out that the learned Trial Judge went wrong in observing that the suit in question is for permanent injunction and further that order in C.R.P.No.1504 of 2017, a copy of which is placed for perusal of the Court would go to show that the same was closed on 02.03.2021 as the main suit itself was dismissed. Therefore, the learned Trial Court’s reliance on the orders in C.R.P.No.1584 of 2017 as if they were passed on 02.06.2017 is misconceived. That apart, the learned counsel submits that to prove the case of the petitioner / plaintiff with regard to 4 execution of Ex.A1-Will dated 24.07.1948, the examination of the grandson of one of the attestors of the said Will is required and under the said circumstances, the application to reopen the matter was filed. He submits that as the entire family / legal heirs of one Mr.Chinthamaneni Venkata Raju, who is the attestor of Ex.A9, left the village long back and with great difficulty, his grandson was traced out recently, the application in question was filed. He also submits that neither the said attestor of Ex.A9 nor his son were alive and unless the petitioner is permitted to adduce evidence through the grandson of the attestor of Ex.A9, serious prejudice and irreparable loss would be caused. He further submits that by adducing further evidence, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents / defendants as they will have an opportunity to cross examine the witness and without considering the relevant aspects, in the proper perspective which would aid for just disposal of the suit, the order under Revision was passed. The learned counsel, therefore, seeks to set aside the impugned order and allow the Revision Petition. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents / defendants made submissions to sustain the impugned order. It is his contention that the present application was filed after the arguments were concluded on both sides, only with a view to protract the matter, for the best reasons known to the petitioner / plaintiff. He submits that though there may not be a dispute that the proposed witness is grandson of attestor of Ex.A9, the question of his testifying in respect of a document / alleged Will, does not arise at all and it appears that he was not even born on the date of the said 5 document. Be that as it may. He submits that there are no bonafides in filing the application in question, that too after conclusion of the arguments and the same is filed only with a view to cover up the lacuna in the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner / plaintiff, that in such circumstances, the learned Trial Court rightly dismissed the application. Making the said submissions and relying on the decisions in Rayapaneni Umadevi v. Bheemineni Vamsi Kiran1 and Gayathri v. M.Girish2, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the Revision Petition. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made. On an appreciation of the arguments advanced, the only point that arises for adjudication is : Whether the order under challenge is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case? 6. At the outset, it may be appropriate to note that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the suit is filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction, though the learned Trial Court observed that it is a suit for permanent injunction that may not be viewed as an error or mistake, which goes to the very root of the matter. Further, it appears that the number of the Revision Petition, on which reliance is placed, is wrongly typed as C.R.P.No.1584 of 2017 instead of C.R.P.No.1504 of 2017. On perusal of the Order in C.R.P.1504 of 2017 dated 02.06.2017, the reliance on the same by the learned Trial Court cannot be found fault with. 1 2019 LawSuit(AP) 421 2 (2016) 14 SCC 142 6 7. Coming to the other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the suit is of the year 2019, arguments on both sides were heard and posted to 01.09.2025 for filing citations. As seen from the impugned order, the matter was almost at the stage of pronouncement of judgment. In such circumstances, this Court see no reason to take a different view to that of the learned Trial Court. The order under challenge is well articulated, contains cogent reasons and does not suffer from jurisdictional error. In Gayathri’s case, referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia held that the interim applications for adjournments, for reopening evidence and recalling of witnesses could be considered only for compelling and acceptable reasons. 8. It is no doubt true that power under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure can be exercised, if ends of justice so warrant and Court can exercise its discretion to permit reopening of evidence or recalling of witnesses for further examination / cross examination after evidence was led by the parties in the attending facts and circumstances. In the present case, it appears that arguments were already advanced by both sides and the matter is coming up for reply arguments on behalf of the petitioner / plaintiff. In such circumstances, the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the application in question cannot be viewed as illegal or perverse. The point is answered accordingly. 7 9. In the above said view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BLV Dt. 26.09.2025 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA C.R.P. No: 2367 of 2025 Date: 26.09.2025 BLV