APHC010030702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: Between: 1. RATAKONDA LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU, S/O. LATE R. VENKAT RAMANA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC.RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O. DOOR No. 17 KAMMAPALLE VILLAGE, MADANAPALLE TOWN MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. 1. R.L.HARSHA VARDHAN, S/O R. LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 18 TIRUPATI. 2. RATAKONDA MANOHAR REDDY, S/O. LATE R. VENKAT RAMANA NAIDU R/O. DOOR N0.16 KAMMAPALLE VILLAGE, MADANAPALLE POST TOWN, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. 3. RATAKONDA SRINIVASULU, S/O. LATE R. VENKATRAMANA NAIDU, R/O D.NO.88, P.T. COLONY, TIRUMALAGIRI POST, SECUNDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE 4. D S VIMAL, S/O. D.R. SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEA D.NO. 12,1ST FLOOR, 22 MAIN, JP NAGAR, BANGALORE. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent(S): -None- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 202 of 2026 RATAKONDA LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU, S/O. LATE R. VENKAT RAMANA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC.RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O. DOOR No. 17-89-9-1-8A, N.V.R. LAYOUT, KAMMAPALLE VILLAGE, MADANAPALLE TOWN MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND R.L.HARSHA VARDHAN, S/O R. LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 18-8-256, MADHURA NAGAR, RATAKONDA MANOHAR REDDY, S/O. LATE R. VENKAT RAMANA NAIDU R/O. DOOR N0.16-544-B1, NIMMANAPALLE ROAD, E VILLAGE, MADANAPALLE POST TOWN, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. RATAKONDA SRINIVASULU, S/O. LATE R. VENKATRAMANA NAIDU, R/O D.NO.88, P.T. COLONY, TIRUMALAGIRI POST, SECUNDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE - 500015. D S VIMAL, S/O. D.R. SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEA D.NO. 12,1ST FLOOR, 22 MAIN, JP NAGAR, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA RATAKONDA LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU, S/O. LATE R. VENKAT RAMANA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC.RETIRED 8A, N.V.R. LAYOUT, KAMMAPALLE VILLAGE, MADANAPALLE TOWN MANDAL, ...PETITIONER R.L.HARSHA VARDHAN, S/O R. LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU, AGED 256, MADHURA NAGAR, RATAKONDA MANOHAR REDDY, S/O. LATE R. VENKAT RAMANA B1, NIMMANAPALLE ROAD, E VILLAGE, MADANAPALLE POST TOWN, RATAKONDA SRINIVASULU, S/O. LATE R. VENKATRAMANA NAIDU, R/O D.NO.88, P.T. COLONY, TIRUMALAGIRI POST, D S VIMAL, S/O. D.R. SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 12,1ST FLOOR, 22 MAIN, JP NAGAR, BANGALORE. 12,1ST FLOOR, 22 MAIN, JP NAGAR, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following order: The present Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by an Order dated 28.07.2025 in I.A.No.213 of 2023 of 2015 in O.S.No.65 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. 2. The 1st respondent filed the said suit against the petitioner / 1st defendant and others seeking partition of the suit schedule properties and to put him in separate possession and enjoyment of the same. After cross examination of P.W.2 and the matter was posted for further evidence, the petitioner / 1st defendant filed the above said I.A., under Order 18, Rule 17 R/w.Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking to recall P.W.2 for further cross examination. The said I.A., came to be dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions inter alia to the effect that the learned Trail Court went wrong in not exercising the discretion vested in it, by considering the matter in the proper perspective. He submits that the reason for filing the I.A., in question was specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. He submits that after cross examination of P.W.2 was completed, some more information was received and therefore, recalling of P.W.2 was necessitated. He submits that by allowing the said application, the learned Trial Court would be in a better position to come to a just decision on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. He also submits that the learned Trial Court went wrong in applying the judgment in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (Dead) through Lrs., v. Sharadchandra 3 Prabhakar Gogate 1 to the facts of the present case. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the impugned order and to allow the Revision Petition. 4. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 5. On an appreciation of the submissions made, the point that arises for adjudication by this Court is : Whether the Order under challenge warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 6. At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioner / 1st defendant filed written statement opposing the claim for partition of the suit schedule properties. A specific plea to the effect that by virtue of a Registered Will dated 16.01.1989, the suit ‘A’ schedule properties devolved on the 1st defendant and his brothers (DW.2 and DW.3) and ‘B’ schedule properties on one Smt. R.Sarojini. While the plaintiff is required to establish his case for partition of suit schedule properties, the defendants have to prove their case on the basis of the said Registered Will. Be that as it may. After conclusion of cross examination of P.W.2, and the matter is posted for further evidence, the petitioner filed I.A., in question seeking to recall P.W.2 for further cross examination. Nothing specific, as to the aspects with reference to which, the said witness was sought to be further examined, was stated, except that some more information was secured. As the affidavit was vague, the learned Trial 1 (2009) 4 SCC 410 4 Court, dismissed the same by relying on the judgment in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar’s case referred to above. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said judgment has no application to the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the scope of Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C., in Para Nos.28 and 29 held as follows: 28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. 29. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicated hereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further at Para No.31 opined that some of the principles akin to Order 47 C.P.C., may be applied when a party makes an application under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C., but it is ultimately within the Court’s discretion, if it feels fit, to allow such application. 8. In the present case, the learned Trial Court, referring to the record, opined that P.W.2 was cross examined at length while observing that the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking to recall P.W.2 was bald. 9. In the light of the above stated position, the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application in question, cannot be found fault with. 5 10. This Court see no reason to interfere with the impugned order as the same does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 11. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Dt. 20.02.2026 BLV 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 202 of 2026 Date: 20.02.2026 BLV