APHC010234642023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: 1. K.RAMA KOTI REDDY, S/O. CHINNAPU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HINDU, RESIDENT OF D.N0.2 KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 1. K PRABHAKAR REDDY, (DIED), 2. K RAJESWARAMMA, W/O. LATE PRABHAKARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 2/220, DUDYALA VILLAGE, KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 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 to allow the C.R.P., by setting aside the Order and Decree passed in I.A.No.61 of 2023 in O.S.No.18 Court Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur and consequently set aside the same, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 to IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1295/2023 K.RAMA KOTI REDDY, S/O. CHINNAPU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HINDU, RESIDENT OF D.N0.2-58, DUDYALA VILLAGE, KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND K PRABHAKAR REDDY, (DIED), K RAJESWARAMMA, W/O. LATE PRABHAKARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 2/220, DUDYALA VILLAGE, KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KURNOOL ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to allow the C.R.P., by setting aside the Order and Decree passed in I.A.No.61 of 2023 in O.S.No.18/2016, dated 18.04.2023 on the file of the Court Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur and consequently set aside the same, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case on 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 to IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI K.RAMA KOTI REDDY, S/O. CHINNAPU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 58, DUDYALA VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER K RAJESWARAMMA, W/O. LATE PRABHAKARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 2/220, DUDYALA VILLAGE, KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, KURNOOL ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to allow the C.R.P., by setting aside the Order and Decree passed in /2016, dated 18.04.2023 on the file of the Court Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur and consequently set aside the same, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper on 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 to 2 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.18/2016 on the file of the Court Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, pending disposal of the C.R.P., in the interest of Justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. C PRAKASH REDDY 3 The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 18.04.2023 passed in Interlocutory Application No.61 of 2023 in Original Suit No.18 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts of the case that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are as follows: i) The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.18 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. ii) The petitioner/plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration and permanent injunction. After recording the evidence of D.W.4, respondent No.2 herein/defendant No.2 filed Interlocutory Application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC praying the Court below to recall D.W.4 (Tahsildar, Kothapalli Mandal) to give further evidence and to produce the documents relating to the petition schedule. iii) The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed counter, denying the allegations of the Interlocutory Application inter alia, contending that respondent No.2 suppressed several real facts from the notice of the Court in respect of her knowledge about survey No.582/1. In her cross examination as D.W.1 she was confronted with the adangal, dated 28.01.2016 pertaining to survey No.582/1, which stands in the name of Prabhakar Reddy. D.W.1 admitted that husband’s name is mentioned in the said documents, whereas she denied the 4 document by giving explanation that the property under the above documents fell to the equal share of her father-in-law and his two brothers. It is further contended that the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application are quite contrary to the admissions made by her during the cross examination. It is further contended that it is not possible to recall D.W.4 again on Ex.A32 document after closing the evidence of D.W.1 who got knowledge about Ex.A32. iv) The Court below, after hearing both parties, allowed the said application holding that D.W.4, being the official witness, is competent person to elicit about the existence of revenue records which are under his control and that in order to clarify the uncertainty over Ex.A32, the plea of the petitioner (i.e., defendant No.2) can be taken into consideration in recalling D.W.4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri J.Janaki Ramireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the counter to the Interlocutory Application, contended that in order to fill up the lacunas, I.A.No.61 of 2023 was filed by defendant No.2. He further contended that the suit schedule pertains to survey No.587, whereas respondent No.2 filed the petition seeking recall of D.W.4 with reference to survey No.582/1 which is not relevant to the subject matter of the suit. This petition for recall was filed only with an intention to prolong the litigation, 5 despite the fact that respondent No.2 already had knowledge about Ex.A31 and A32 at the time of her cross examination. No proper or valid grounds were made out before the Court below for recalling D.W.4, in fact D.W.4 was re-examined at length after the completion of cross examination. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition and consequently dismiss the Interlocutory Application. 5. On the other hand, Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.61 of 2023, submitted that at the stage of adjudication of the Interlocutory Application, the Court below is not required to examine the necessity or otherwise of the documents proposed to be produced through the Tahsildar. The plaintiff is at liberty to cross-examine D.W.4 and to oppose the marking or consideration of the said documents by assigning valid reasons. The only aspect to be considered is whether any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if the application is allowed, however, the petitioner has not raised valid grounds explaining prejudice. No valid grounds have been raised or urged before this Court warranting interference with the order of the Court below. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6 7. The contention of the petitioner herein is that the suit schedule property pertains to Survey No. 587, whereas the subject Survey No. 582/1 has no connection whatsoever with the suit schedule property. In such circumstances, recalling the Tahsildar to elicit evidence with regard to the said survey number and to produce related documents is not justified and it amounts to filling up the lacunas. 8. It is not in dispute that adangal for fasli relating to survey No.582/1 has already been marked as Ex.A31. 9. It is settled law that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is discretionary and intended to enable the Court to clarify any doubt or to elicit necessary information for proper adjudication of the matter. The scope of interference in a Civil Revision Petition is limited and can be exercised only when there is patent illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the order impugned. In the present case, the Court below, after hearing both parties, exercised its discretion in allowing the application for recall of D.W.4 for the purpose of clarifying the issues surrounding Ex.A32. Whether the documents sought to be produced are ultimately admissible or relevant is a matter to be considered at the appropriate stage. The petitioner herein will have adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness and raise all objections available under law. 7 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma1 held that: “It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand made of justice and therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the dictum laid down in the aforesaid citation, the Court below has rightly taken into consideration the facts and allowed the Application. 11. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to explain what specific prejudice would cause to him if Interlocutory Application is allowed. In the said circumstances, interference by this Court does not arise. Hence, this Court holds that the impugned order is a reasoned one and does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 04.02.2026 MP 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 8 302 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1295 of 2023 Dated 04.02.2026 MP