Date of reserved for orders : 13.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 20.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010640322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 3371, 3372 and 3373 of 2025 C.R.P.No. 3371 of 2025 Between: 1. PERUMALLA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, S/O. SRIRAMA KRISHA MURTHY, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SARIPALLE VILLAGE, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. GOLLA NARAYANA RAO, S/o. Radha Krishna Murthy, Aged about 64 years, residing at FOF-4, Vijaya Sarada Towers, Dasari Lingaiah Street, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada-520010 ...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 to aggrieved by the order dt.03.11.2025 Passed in I.A.No.348 of 2025 in O.S.NO.514/2018 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vijayawada, IA NO: 1 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.514/2018 by learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vijayawada pending C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P A SESHU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SOHIT CHANDRA TRIPURANENI C.R.P.No. 3372 of 2025 Between: 1. PERUMALLA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, S/O SRIRAMA KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SARIPALLE VILLAGE, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. GOLLA NARAYANA RAO, S/o. Radha Krishna Murthy, Aged about 64 years, residing at FOF-4, Vijaya Sarada Towers, Dasari Lingaiah Street, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada-5200 ...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 toBeing aggrieved by the order dt. 03-11-2025 passed in IA.No. 350 of 2025 in O.S.NO.514/2018 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vijayawada, the Petitioner is constrained to filed the C.R.P. for the following among other grounds IA NO: 1 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 OS.No. 514/2018 by learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vijayawada pending C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P A SESHU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SOHIT CHANDRA TRIPURANENI C.R.P.No. 3373 of 2025 Between: 1. PERUMALLA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, S/O. SRIRAMA KRISHA MURTHY, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SARIPALLE VILLAGE, GANAPAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. GOLLA NARAYANA RAO, S/o. Radha Krishna Murthy, Aged about 64 years, residing at FOF-4, Vijaya Sarada Towers, Dasari Lingaiah Street, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada-520010 ...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 to set-aside the order dt.03.11.2025 Passed in I.A.No.349 of 2025 in O.S.NO.514/2018 the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vijayawada, allowing C.R.P. as prayed for in the interest of Justice and pass IA NO: 1 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.514/2018 by learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vijayawada pending C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P A SESHU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SOHIT CHANDRA TRIPURANENI The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER The plaintiff in the suit filed the above three revisions against three separate orders dated 03.11.2025 in I.A.No.348 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the suit; I.A.No.350 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 14 (3) & Section 151 of CPC to receive documents and I.A.No.349 of 2025 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to recall the plaintiff for further evidence. 2. Since the issues involved in the three revisions are inter-related, arising out of the same suit O.S.No.514 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the three revisions by way of a common order. 3. The plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.514 of 2018 seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 06.09.2007. The evidence in the suit was completed, and the suit was coming up for arguments. At that juncture, the plaintiff filed three I.As.referred to supra. 4. a) The case, as set out by the plaintiff in the plaint, is that one D.Seshamma was the owner of the property admeasuring 807.55 square yards of site in R.S.No.190/10 of Patamata, Vijayawada. She executed a development agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 14.08.2006 in favour of the defendant in respect of the aforementioned land. Page 5 of 13 During the lifetime of D.Sehsamma, the defendant agreed to sell Flat No.6, Second Floor in Seetarama Towers for Rs.7,15,000/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration, and the defendant executed an agreement of sale dated 06.09.2007 and got it registered vide document No.4348 of 2007. The defendant was appointed as the GPA Holder of D.Seshamma. b) Thereafter, disputes arose between D.Seshamma and the defendant. She bequeathed Item “A” of schedule property to Lingam Vijaya Durga through a registered Will dated 05.05.2007. The said Lingam Vijaya Durga filed suit O.S.No.78 of 2007 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, against the defendant for a declaration that the development agreement-cum-GPA dated 14.08.2006 is illegal and for consequential reliefs. Pending the said suit, a compromise was entered into, and the suit was referred to Lok Adalat. An award dated 04.03.2011 was passed. The defendant informed about the Lok Adalat Award and the partition effected between the defendant and Lingam Vijaya Durga and gave relevant papers. Thereafter, the plaintiff got the papers scrutinised through his advocate in the year 2012. The defendant started construction of the balance work and finished in the middle of July, 2012 and delivered possession of schedule property to the plaintiff by the end of July, 2012. The plaintiff expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the obligation and sent a notice dated 08.07.2017 and another notice dated 01.09.2017, and thereafter filed the suit. 5. The defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. The gist of the written statement is that the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands. He pleaded different transactions with the plaintiff’s brother and contended that the plaintiff is a benami of his brother. There is no legal or valid delivery of possession of property by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The suit is barred by limitation etc. 6. As noted supra, when the suit is coming up for arguments, the above applications were filed by the plaintiff. 7. In the affidavits filed in support of the petitions, it was pleaded that Xerox copy of registered development agreement-cum-GPA dated 14.08.2006, Xerox copy of registered partition deed dated 16.06.2012 and Xerox copy of Lok Adalat Award dated 04.03.2011 between the defendant and L.Vijaya Durga were mixed up with other papers and they were not traced. They were traced out on 26.09.2025, and hence, the applications were filed on 27.09.2025. 8. The defendant filed a counter and opposed the applications. 9. The trial court, by separate orders, dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the above revisions were filed. 10. Heard Sri P.A.Seshu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sohit Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent. 11. Sri P.A. Seshu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the documents filed along with the leave petition were misplaced and hence, the petitioner could not file the same at an earlier point in time. The petitioner obtained certified copies of Xerox copies, and hence the trial Court ought to have allowed the applications. He would further submit that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. The defendant suppressed the development agreement-cum-GPA; registered partition deed, and Lok Adalat Award and hence, an opportunity should have been given to the plaintiff to mark the said documents as exhibits. He would also submit that the plaintiff is not a party to those documents and hence, it is difficult for him to obtain certified copies. He relied upon the judgment in Muruganandam Vs. Muniyandi (Died) through LRs.1 12. Sri K.Sohit Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that in the plaint itself, the plaintiff averred about those documents and having averred in the plaint, the plaintiff did not choose to mark those documents. In the suit, arguments were completed, and when the suit was reserved for judgment, these applications were filed only to drag the proceedings further. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shubhkaran Singh Vs. Abharaj Singh & Ors2. 13. Now, the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the orders dated 03.11.2025 in I.A.Nos.348, 349 and 350 of 2025 in O.S.No.514 of 2018 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada, suffer from any illegality? 2. Whether the plaintiff made out a ground to reopen the suit, to receive the document and to recall him for further evidence. 14. The facts narrated supra require no reiteration. In the plaint itself, the plaintiff pleaded about defendant informed him about the Lok Adalat Award and partition effected between him and L.Vijaya Durga and his handing over the papers to him, and thereafter he got the said papers scrutinised through his advocate in the year 2012. In Paragraph-5 of the plaint, it was specifically mentioned about the suit filed by L.Vijaya Durga against the defendant, compromise and Lok Adalat award etc. 1 2025 (4) ALT 19 (SC) 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1028 15. A perusal of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff is aware of all these documents now sought to be filed. Those documents were not even filed along with the plaint. 16. As seen from the orders of the trial Court, the trial was completed on 30.06.2025, and the suit was adjourned to 07.07.2025 for arguments. After taking seven adjournments, the plaintiff’s counsel completed arguments on 20.05.2025, and the suit was adjourned to 01.09.2025 for the defendant's arguments. After the defendant's arguments, the suit was adjourned to 09.09.2025 for reply arguments. The plaintiff’s counsel submitted reply arguments, and the suit was adjourned to 09.10.2025 for judgment. After the suit was adjourned for judgment, the plaintiff filed these applications on 25.09.2025 at 3.50 p.m. 17. Thus, the dates referred to supra would manifest that when the suit was posted for judgment, interlocutory applications were filed. 18. Whether the reason assigned by the plaintiff requires consideration. According to the plaintiff, one day before the filing of the applications, he traced out the papers at his house. 19. The plaintiff filed these applications on 27.09.2025. Along with I.A.No.350 of 2025, the plaintiff filed the Certified extract of registered development agreement-cum-GPA dated 14.08.2006 and the Certified extract of registered partition deed dated 16.06.2012 between the defendant and L.Vijaya Durga. 20. It is pertinent to mention here that, as seen from the affidavit, he gave two versions. (1) He could trace the papers one day before filing the petitions. (2) After tracing out Xerox copies, he obtained certified copies of documents. Nothing was stated as to the date on which he could get the certified copies. Page 9 of 13 This itself manifests the conduct of the petitioner and leads to a conclusion that these applications were filed only to procrastinate the proceedings. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar Vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate3, considered the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, observed thus: “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 reexamination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.” 22. In the case of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy4, the Apex Court discussed the power of the Court vis-à-vis Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC and held thus: “9. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily a provision enabling the court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo motu, or at the request of any party, so that the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions. 10. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 3 (2009) 4 SCC 410 4 (2011) 11 SCC 275 is primarily a provision enabling the court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo motu, or at the request of any party, so that the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions. 19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non- production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs.” 23. In Ram Rati Vs. Mange Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others 5 , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered judgment reported in Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar’s case (supra-3) and K.K. Veluswamy’s case (supra-4) and Bagai Construction Thr. its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Bagai vs. Gupta Building Material Store6, and held thus: 5 (2016) 11 SCC 296 6 AIR 2013 SC 1849 “11. … The basic purpose of Rule 17 is to enable the court to clarify any position or doubt, and the court may, either suo motu or on the request of any party, recall any witness at any stage in that regard. This power can be exercised at any stage of the suit. No doubt, once the court recalls the witness for the purpose of any such clarification, the court may permit the parties to assist the court by examining the witness for the purpose of clarification required or permitted by the court. The power under Rule 17 cannot be stretched any further. The said power cannot be invoked to fill up omission in the evidence already led by a witness. It cannot also be used for the purpose of filling up a lacuna in the evidence. “No prejudice is caused to either party” is also not a permissible ground to invoke Rule 17. No doubt, it is a discretionary power of the court but to be used only sparingly, and in case, the court decides to invoke the provision, it should also see that the trial is not unnecessarily protracted on that ground.” 24. Thus, reopening of a suit, receiving a document and recalling of witnesses cannot be allowed to fill up lacunae in the evidence. Inherent power cannot be exercised routinely. The discretionary power is to be used sparingly and not as a general rule. The revision petitioner did not assign valid reasons either to reopen, receive documents or to recall the P.W.1. 25. In the case at hand, the trial Court considered all these aspects and dismissed the applications. Unless the orders of the trial Court suffer from illegality and the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, normally, a revisional court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, will not interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. The said legal regime is well settled. Page 12 of 13 26. In Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. and Another Vs. B.Gurappa Naidu and Others 7, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and summarized the principles as follows: “35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters, is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.” The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the judgments in Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil8; Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.9, and Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel10. 27. In fact, the trial Court considered all these aspects minutely and dismissed all the applications. This Court does not find any perversity or 7 2026 SCC OnLine SC 745 8 (2010) 8 SCC 329 9 (2001) 8 SCC 97 10 (2022) 4 SCC 181 illegality in the orders passed by the trial Court. This Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its opinion by taking the role of an appellate Court. The orders under revision brook no interference. There are no merits in the revision. 28. Given the discussion supra, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The learned trial court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the circulars issued by the High Court from time to time. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No