1 HN, J C.R.P.No.1385_2022 APHC010358382022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1385/2022 Between: 1. TIYYAGURA SAMBIREDDY DIED, A 2. TIYYAGURA RANGA REDDY,, S/O SAMBIREDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O TELAPROLU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. BUTTULA BABY, W/o Battula Sambireddy, Hindu Aged about 65 years, R/o Telaprolu Vilage, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District. ...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 topleased to set aside the Order dt.04-07-2022 passed in I.A.No.22/2022 in O.S.No.542/2019 on the file of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Cum Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram by allowing the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 stay of all further proceedings in I.A.No.22/2022 in O.S.No.542/2019 on the file of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Cum Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram and pass 2 HN, J C.R.P.No.1385_2022 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 pleased to extend the Interim Order granted in I.A.No.01/2022 in C.R.P.No.1385/2022, dt.25-07-2022 till further orders and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V LAKSHMI HARISH 3 HN, J C.R.P.No.1385_2022 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram, in I.A.No.22 of 2022 in O.S.No.542 of 2019, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 151 CPC was allowed by the learned Judge. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff in the suit filed an I.A. requiring the defendant to produce the witnesses to support the defendant's case in one go and for cross-examining the said witnesses on the same day. It is submitted that such procedure is unknown to law and places reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the matter of Nanduri Ramakrishna and another v. Penakati narasimha Murthy @ Avatharam1. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is entitled, under law, to adduce evidence and prosecute his case in the manner deemed appropriate by the litigant. It is also submitted that the contesting parties cannot regulate the manner of examination of witnesses of the other side. It is submitted that the learned Judge erred in directing the petitioner to submit the list of witnesses and adduce evidence on the same day. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the defendants has been examined as DW-1, and DW-2 is the attestor of the will 1 2013 (1) ALD 144 4 HN, J C.R.P.No.1385_2022 introduced by the defendant. It is further submitted that the other attestor of the will and the scribe of the will are potential witnesses who may be introduced may be introduced by the defendant for proving the said will. It is submitted that, anticipating such action from the defendants, the petitioner filed an I.A. seeking a direction to the defendants to examine the witnesses relating to the will on the same day, in order to facilitate the plaintiff in cross- examining those witnesses. The learned Judge has passed a well-reasoned order and, as such, it is submitted that the Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. The short point for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned Judge deserves to be interfered with. As seen from the facts of the case, the I.A.No.22 of 2022 was filed by the plaintiff seeking a direction to the defendant to file the chief affidavits of the other witnesses in the suit for the purpose of cross-examination. The will was introduced by the defendant and forms a crucial document which would have to stand the test of trial. The plaintiff intends to cross-examine the witnesses relating to the will. The attestors and the scribe of the will are potential witnesses whose evidence may be adduced before the Court for proving the said document. 7. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the witnesses relating to the will would have to be examined 5 HN, J C.R.P.No.1385_2022 and cross-examined on the same day, in order to ensure that the line of cross- examination does not spill over to the next day, which might confer an undue advantage on the defendants. 8. Admittedly, the will was introduced by the defendants, and it is for the defendants to prove its validity. For the purpose, the defendants would have to examine the witnesses connected with the will. It is left open to the defendants to examine as many witnesses as deemed appropriate for proving the will. However, it is also essential that the trial Court would have to permit the plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses related to the will on the same day, which would ensure a fair disposal of the suit. 9. On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter. 10. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order passed in the C.R.P. shall be confined to the witnesses relating to the executants of the will, attestors of the will, and the scribe of the will. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:30.03.2026 NKA 6 HN, J C.R.P.No.1385_2022 256 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1385 of 2022 Date: 30.03.2026 NKA