IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3241 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order and decree dated 24.06.2024 passed in I.A. No. 384 of 2024 in O.S. No. 123 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Gudivada. Between: Polagani Srinivasa Rao, S/o late Bikahala Rao, Hindu, Aged about 43 years. Business, C/o Polagani Marriage Services and Real Estates, Sri Ravi Nivas, Near Z.P. High School, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada-8, Krishna District. ...Petitioner / Respondent No.2 / Defendant No.1 AND 1. Smt. Polagani Suseela, W/o late Bikshala Rao, Hindu, Aged 70 years. House wife, R/o D.No. 7/7, Angaluru Village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District. ...Respondent No.1 / Petitioner / Defendant No.2 2. Smt. Jannu Naga Kumari, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, Aged 50 years. Agriculture works, R/o Peda Lingala, Nandivada Mandal, Krishna District. ...Respondent No.2 / Respondent No.1 / Plaintiff lA 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 123 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Gudivada, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. T B L MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: --- The Court made the following: 1 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.3241 of 2024) % COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARl pF\/i-*=^inN PETITIO*^ >^0- 3241/2024 APHC010597442024 IN THE HIGH [3299] CIVIL Between; Polagani Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Polagani Suseela and Others Counsel for the Petitioner. 1.TBLMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): Smt. 1. The Court made the following. ORDER: learned counsel for the petitioner. .S.No.123 of 2019 on the file Judge (Junior Division), Gudivada three equal shares and to allot Heard Sri T.B.L.Murthy respondent/plaintiff filed O of the learned Principal Civil nd 2. The 2 of the Court partition of piaint schedule properties into the 2'^'^ respondent/plaintiff. for one such share to . i. 2 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.3241 of 2024) The petitioner is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.123 of 2019.He 3. nd St respondent herein and the brother of the 2 respondent/plaintiff. The suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property of Late Bikshala Rao, the father of the 2"^' respondent and husband of the 1®* respondent. is the son of the 1 The case of the petitioner is that his father (Late Bikshala Rao) executed a Willdated 27.12.2004, in his favour bequeathing the suit schedule property to him. Respondents denied the execution of Will, stating that it was a forged Will. The expert opinion, with respect to the Will was received. The 1^‘ respondent (Defendant No.2) filed I.A.No.384 of 4. 2024 under Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,(in short ‘CPC’) to recall the evidence of D.W.4 for further The petitioner filed counter examination. D.W.4 is the Defendant No.2. opposing I.A.No.384 of 2024. 'The learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gudivada 5. allowed the application, by order dated 24.06.2024.Challenging the order dated 24.06.2024, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned 6. order cannot be sustained. Unless the expert opinionwas marked, it could not be looked into. It has also to be proved by examining the expert, as witness and giving opportunity of his cross-examination. He submits that, the ground that she had no financial capacity to examine the expert for 3 % (RNTJ C.R.P.No.3241 of 2024) marking the expert opinion, isunsustainable to recall D.W.4. He placed reliance in State of H.P., V. Jai Lai and others\ I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned 7. counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. I.A.No.384 of 2024 was filed to recall the witness D.W.4, for 8 further cross-examination and to mark the expert opinion. It has been allowed by the learned Court after being satisfied that it was in the interest of justice to provide an opportunity to defendant No.2 to establish her case, I do not find that any reason to interfere with the order impugned in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When the learned Court was satisfied that it was so required to meet the ends of justice. It is settled in law that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 9. 227 is not to be invoked to interfere with the order of the learned Court in a In Shalini Shyam Shetty V. Rajendra Shankar PatW, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at paragraph No.49 as under: routine way. “49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated: ' AIR 1999 SC 3318 " (2010) 8 see 329 4 (RNTJ C.R.P.No.3241 of 2024) (a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is.also different. (b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above. (c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court. (d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court. (e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of their authority'. (f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. (g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f). High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has ■ ‘-been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts 5 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.3241 of 2024) subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted, (h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. (i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported in see 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional (1997) 3 amendment is also very doubtful. (j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it remembered that such statutory amendment does not must be correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. (k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu. (I) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory, (m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be that the wheel of justice does not the fountain of justice remains pure and to kept to the minimum to ensure come to a halt and 6 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.3241 of 2024) unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. (n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above. (o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.” 10. In Jai Lai (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the report submitted by expert does not go in evidence automatically. The expert has to be examined as a witness in Court and has to face cross- examination. The said contention is open to be raised in the suit proceedings at the appropriate stage. However, it cannot be a ground not to afford opportunity to the 2"^defendant on her application, to recall the witness D.W.4. If during the course of trial, the expert is not examined as a witness and if examination is found to be necessary, the legal consequences may well be considered by the learned Court, if the occasion so arises, in the facts and circumstances of the case. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner 11. relying on Jai Lai (supra) does not arise at all at this stage. 7 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.3241 of 2024) The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and is dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall also stand closed. Sd/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Gudivada (with records) 2. One CC to Sri. T.B.L. Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, V R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 4. Three CD Copies PR sree HIGH COURT DATED:09/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.3241 of 2024 9* 0 5 MAR 2IPS ^ . Current deciion . DISMISSING THE C.R.P WITHOUT COSTS