APHC010016122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 74/2025 Between: 1. S JYOTHI BAI, W/O.LATE SANTOSHAM AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.12-5-16/4 VIJAYAPURI, TARNAKA, SECUNDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. P SIVA KONDAIAH, S/o.P.Satyanarayana Aged about 59 years, R/o.D.No.2-108 Velpuru Village, Kankipadu Mandal Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT 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 tobegs to present the above revision questioning the Order Dt. 26-12-2024 passed in I.A.No. 1043/2023 in O.S.No.110/2017 on the file of the court of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada,NTR District, Andhra Pradesh, IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 VS,J C.R.P.NO.74 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 Pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.110/2017 on the file of the court of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, NTR District, AP pending disposal of the above C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SINDHU KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. RAMA RAO KOCHIRI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.NO.74 OF 2025 ORDER:- The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 26.12.2024 in I.A.No.1043 of 2023 in O.S.No.110 of 2017 passed by the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, NTR District, dismissing the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 3 and 3A and Section 151 of CPC filed for permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to examine her daughter Smt.T.Hema Sunitha as PW-1 and allow her to examine herself at a later stage. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.110 of 2017.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.49,14,000/- with interest from the defendant. The defendant filed his written statement admitting the execution of the agreement of sale and receipt of advance money thereunder, but he is falsely claiming that the plaintiff forfeited the advance money. The plaintiff claimed in the said petition that in view of the pleadings, the burden of proof is substantially lies on the defendant. The plaintiff is supposed to produce her evidence in 4 VS,J C.R.P.NO.74 OF 2025 support of her pleading but she wants to examine her daughter as a first witness reserving her right to lead rebuttal evidence after the evidence of the defendant. 4. The defendant filed counter contending that after the evidence of the plaintiff only the defendant has to submit his evidence and that to cover the latches the plaintiff filed the present petition without examining herself as first witness. 5. On considering the contentions of both the parties and referring the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 3A of C.P.C dismissed the petition holding that there is no contingency as stated by the plaintiff in the petition, as there is only one main issue the burden of which lies on the plaintiff. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision petition is came to be filed. 6. Heard Mr.S.S.Prasad, learned Senior counsel representing Smt.C.Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court grossly erred in dismissing the petition without assigning any reasons. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pleadings, the burden of proof lies on 5 VS,J C.R.P.NO.74 OF 2025 the defendant basing on his pleadings where he falsely claiming that the plaintiff forfeited the advance money. The court below failed to give reasons while dismissing the petition, contrary to the mandatory provision of Order XVIII Rule 3A of CPC. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order of the trial court is justified, well-founded and there exists no irregularity in dismissing the petition. 9. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the court below is justified? 10. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 3 and 3A of C.P.C:- <Evidence where several issues:- Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case. 3-A Party to appear before other witnesses:- Where a party himself wishes to appear as a witness, he shall so appear, before any other witness on his behalf has been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, permits him to appear as his own witness at a later stage.= 6 VS,J C.R.P.NO.74 OF 2025 11. As seen from the material on record, it appears that the suit claim represents an amount of Rs.39,00,000/-, which the plaintiff had paid as earnest money pursuant to an agreement of sale dated 15.09.2014. The defendant filed his written statement stating that the said earnest money was forfeited by the plaintiff but however, he admitted the agreement of sale and payment of earnest money. The suit came up for trial and the plaintiff was very old and burden of proof in the suit is on the defendant in view of his claim of forfeiting the amount of Rs.39,00,000/- by the plaintiff on account of termination of agreement. In such circumstances, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1043 of 2023 under order XVIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure Code praying the lower court for permission to examine the plaintiff’s daughter on her behalf before the examination of the plaintiff if necessary. 12. The learned Senior counsel has argued that the court below dismissed the application on the sole ground that the plaintiff is entitled for production of rebuttal evidence and seeks permission to reserve her right to lead rebuttal evidence after completion of evidence of the defendant, but no such relief sought in the petition. Even otherwise the issues framed in the suit are not keeping the burden on the defendant and held that 7 VS,J C.R.P.NO.74 OF 2025 the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party. The suit came up for trial and the plaintiff was very old and burden of proof in the suit is on the defendant. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner has every right to choose whom to be examined first and as she is aged about 80 years, she has filed the present application requesting the Court below to examine her daughter in her place and reserve her right to produce the rebuttal evidence in future if necessary, but the right to lead rebuttal evidence would rise only if necessary, so on that ground the trail court cannot dismiss the application filed by the plaintiff. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the rival contentions of the parties, this court has no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has every right to choose whom to be examined on her behalf, but the court below has misinterpreted the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 3 and 3A of CPC and that the conclusions arrived at by the court below are not at all justifiable in dismissing the petition, without there being 8 VS,J C.R.P.NO.74 OF 2025 any reasons and as such the order under revision suffers from serious infirmity warranting interference of this court in exercise of restricted revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India and hence, the order under revision is liable to be set- aside. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 26.12.2024 in I.A.No.1043 of 2023 in O.S.No.110 of 2017 passed by the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, NTR District is hereby set-aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:17.10.2025 LSP 9 VS,J C.R.P.NO.74 OF 2025 280 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 74/2025 Date:17.10.2025 LSP