Date of reserved for orders : 24.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 31.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010332092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1629, 1685, 2122 & 2267 of 2025 C.R.P.No.1629 of 2025 Between: 1. BOMMIDA ATCHIRAU, W/O SURYANAIYANA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.1-4, VELANKA VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. INTI KANTHAM, W/O GANDHALA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.4-96, VANNEPUDI VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. ADAPA RATNAM, W/O KONDA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.3-79, SOMAVARAM VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THORATI LAKSHMI, W/O PEDAKAPU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.2-12, GONEDA VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. SETTY YESAMMA, W/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO. 1-70, CHADALADA VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. YERRA YESUBABU DIED, A 2. YERRA PRABHAVATHI, W/O LATE YESUBABU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. VANNEPUDI VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D.NO.5-104, GOLLAPROLU VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. YERRAMSETTI ARUNA, W/O VEERABABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BURUGUPUDI VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. YERRAMSETTI VIJAYA, W/O TATAJI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BURUGUPUDI VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. . ...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 Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 02.05.2025 made in l.A.No.383 of 2025 in O.S.No. 152 of 2015 pending on the file of The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, East Godavari District 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. 152 of 2015 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the above CRP Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Page 3 of 16 2. M SRI ATCHYUT C.R.P.No.1685 of 2025 Between: 1. BOMMIDA ATCHIRAU, W/O SURYANARYANA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCHOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO. 1-4, VELANKA VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. 1NTI KANTHAM, W/O GANDHALA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCHOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.4-96, VANNEPUDI VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. ADAPA RATNAM, W/O KONDA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.3-79, SOMAVARAM VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THORATI LAKSHMI, W/O PEDAKAPU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.2-12, GONEDA VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. SETTY YESAMMA, W/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO. 1-70, CHADALADA VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. YERRA YESUBABU, DIED) 2. YERRA PRABHAVATHI, W/O LATE YESUBABU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. VANNEPUDI VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D.NO.5-104, GOLLAPROLU VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. YERRAMSETTI ARUNA, W/O VEERABABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BURUGUPUDI VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. YERRAMSETTI VIJAYA, W/O TATAJI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. BURUGUPUDI VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 The above named Petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Petition challenging the order dated 02.05.2025 made in Civil Revision I.A.N0. 380 of 2025 in O.S.No. 152 of 2015 pending on the file of The Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, East Godavari District for Civil 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 O.S.No. 152 of 2015 pending on the file of The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the above CRP and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to extend the interim order granted on 18.07.2025 in C.R.P.No.1685 of 2025 which was extended from time to time and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. M SRI ATCHYUT C.R.P.No.2122 of 2025 Between: 1. BOMMIDA ATCHIRAU, W/O SUIYANARYANA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO. 1-4, VELANKA VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. INTI KANTHAM, W/O GAINDHALA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.4-96, VANNEPUDI VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. ADAPA RATNAM, W/O KONDA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.3-79, SOMAVARAM VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THORATI LAKSHMI, W/O PEDAKAPU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.2-12, GONEDA VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. SETTY YESAMMA, W/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO. 1-70, CHADALADA VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. YERRA YESUBABUDIED, (DIED) 2. YERRA PRABHAVATHI, W/O LATE YESUBABU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. VANNEPUDI VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D.NO.5-104, GOLLAPROLU VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. YERRAMSETTI ARUNA, W/O VEERABABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BURUGUPUDI VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. YERRAMSETTI VIJAYA, W/O TATAJI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BURUGUPUDI VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 topleased to set aside the order dated 02.05.2025 made in I.A.No. 381 of 2025 in O.S.No.152 of 2015 pending on the file of The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, East Godavari District, and allow the Interlocutory applications 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. 152 of 2015 pending on the file of The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the above CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. M SRI ATCHYUT C.R.P.No.2267 of 2025 Between: 1. BOMMIDA ATCHIRAU, W/O SURYANAIYANA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO. 1-4, VELANKA VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. INTI KANTHAM W, W/O GANDHALA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.4-96, VANNEPUDI VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. ADAPA RATNAM, W/O KONDA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.3-79, SOMAVARAM VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THORATI LAKSHMI, W/O PEDAKAPU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.2-12, GONEDA VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. SETTY YESAMMA, W/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O P.NO. 1-70, CHADALADA VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. YERRA YESUBABU DIED, (DIED) 2. YERRA PRABHAVATHI, W/O LATE YESUBABU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. VANNEPUDI VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D.NO.5-104, GOLLAPROLU VILLAGE, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. YERRAMSETTI ARUNA, W/O VEERABABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BURUGUPUDI VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. YERRAMSETTI VIJAYA, W/O TATAJI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BURUGUPUDI VILLAGE, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 topleased to set aside the order dated 02.05.2025 made in I.A.No. 382 of 2025 in O.S.No.152 of 2015 pending on the file of The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, East Godavari District, and allow the Interlocutory applications 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. 152 of 2015 pending on the file of The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the above CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. M SRI ATCHYUT The Court made the following: ::COMMON ORDER :: Heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revisions. The plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No. 152 of 2015 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties into six equal and equitable shares and for future profits, etc. Originally, the suit was filed against the sole defendant, Yerra Yesubabu. The plaintiffs and the defendant are sisters and brother and are the children of Late Yerra Ayyanna and late Smt. Veerraju. 3. According to the plaintiffs, item No.1 of the suit schedule property was purchased by late Sri Yerra Ayyanna under a registered sale deed dated 23.04.1990 vide document No.591 of 1990. Item No.2 of the suit schedule property belonged to late Sri Yerra Ayyanna. Sri Yerra Ayyanna died on 09.04.2009 leaving behind his wife, plaintiffs and the defendant. Item No.3 of the schedule property belonged to their maternal grandmother, Kosireddy Papayamma. The said Papayamma bequeathed the property to Yerra Veerraju towards Pasupu-Kumkuma. The said Veerraju died intestate on 08.09.2009. The plaintiffs got issued a legal notice dated 08.02.2013 demanding partition and then filed the suit for partition. 4. The sole defendant, during his lifetime, filed a written statement admitting the relationship. The defendant contended that Yerra Ayyanna died testate on 09.04.2009 by executing an unregistered Will dated 01.04.2008 in a sound and disposing state of mind. The defendant also gave a reply notice. In the Will dated 01.04.2008, Ayyanna created a life interest to Veerraju and vested the remainder to the defendant in respect of item No.3. The revenue authorities updated the Record of Rights and issued pattadar passbook and title deed to the defendant. The defendant gifted the property to his daughters to an extent of Ac.0-64 cents respectively. As on the date of filing of the suit, no land was available for partition. Pending the suit, the sole defendant died, and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.2 to 4. 5. The defendants 2 to 4 filed I.A.No.312 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the suit and to permit defendant No.2 to adduce evidence. By order dated 29.04.2019, the said I.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed C.R.P.No.1539 of 2019. The said Civil Revision Petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated 29.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.312 of 2019. Accordingly, I.A.No.312 of 2019 was allowed. 6. Thereafter, defendant No.2 examined herself as D.W.1 in chief on 04.02.2025. However, no documents were marked. The suit was adjourned to 10.02.2025. D.W.1 was cross-examined on 10.02.2025, and the suit was adjourned to 18.02.2025 for further evidence on behalf of the defendant. On 18.02.2025, the defendant was called absent. No representation was made on behalf of the defendant. The trial Court adjourned the suit finally to 25.02.2025. Again, on 25.02.2025, the defendant was called absent, and there was no representation. The suit was adjourned to 03.03.2025 on payment of costs of Rs.50/-. On 03.03.2025, a cost memo was filed, and the suit was adjourned to 10.03.2025 on payment of further costs of Rs.100/-. On 10.03.2025, the cost memo was filed, and the defendant's evidence was closed. The suit was adjourned for arguments on 17.03.2025. On 17.03.2025, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted arguments and the suit was adjourned to 24.03.2025 for arguments of the defendant. 7. On 24.03.2025, the counsel appeared for the defendants filed a memo stating that a letter was addressed to the defendants and, at his request, the matter was adjourned to 04.04.2025. On 04.04.2025, the defendant came to the Court and requested time to engage an Advocate. Hence, the suit was adjourned to 07.04.2025. On 07.04.2025, one Sri G.V.L. and GSPR, Advocates, filed vakalat on behalf of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and the suit was adjourned to 17.04.2025. 8. On 17.04.2025, the defendants filed four interlocutory applications i.e., (i) I.A.No.380 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the evidence of defendants to enable D.W.1 to recall herself; (ii) I.A.No.381 of 2025 under Order VIII Rule 1(A3) and Section 151 CPC seeking leave to file list of documents mentioned therein; (iii) I.A.No.382 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC to file additional chief affidavit of D.W.1; (iv) I.A.No.383 of 2025 under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC to recall D.W.1 for further chief examination and to mark the documents. 9. Though separate affidavits were filed, the substance of the affidavits is that the defendants changed their Advocate on 07.04.2025 and, while going through the record, the newly engaged advocate informed them that the documents were crucial, but the same had neither been filed before the Court nor exhibited. Hence, the aforementioned applications were filed. 10. The plaintiffs filed counter and opposed the applications. By separate orders dated 02.05.2025, the trial Court allowed the interlocutory applications on payment of costs of Rs.500/- each to the Mandal Legal Services Authority on or before 08.05.2025. 11. Against the order in I.A.No.383 of 2025, the plaintiffs filed C.R.P.No.1629 of 2025; I.A.No.380 of 2025, C.R.P.No.1685 of 2025; I.A.No.382 of 2025, C.R.P.No.2267 of 2025; and I.A.No.381 of 2025, C.R.P.No.2122 of 2025. 12. Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that despite the order dated 11.12.2024 passed in C.R.P.No.1539 of 2019, the defendants failed to produce the documents. In fact, defendant No.2 examined herself as D.W.1. After closure of the evidence and after the plaintiffs’ arguments by changing Advocate, the interlocutory applications were filed. The trial Court failed to consider those aspects and allowed the applications. Learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s Bagai Construction, through its Proprietor Mr.Lalit Bagai Vs. M/s Gupta Building Material Store1. 13. Per contra, Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that the defendants are illiterate people. They handed over the said documents to their earlier counsel; however, the said counsel failed to file those documents before the Court. After the change of the Advocate, the newly engaged Advocate verified the record and immediately filed the applications. He would further submit that the suit was filed for partition by the sisters against their brother and that the brother died pending the suit. The documents are very much necessary in the light of the defence taken by the deceased/1st defendant. 14. The point for consideration is: Whether the orders dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Pitapuam, in the aforementioned interlocutory applications warrant interference? 1 (2013) 14 SCC 1=AIR 2013 SC 1849 15. The sequence of events, as narrated supra, reveals that when the defendants 2 to 4 filed an application i.e., I.A.No.312 of 2019, under Section 151 CPC to reopen the suit, the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 29.04.2019. The said order was set aside by this Court in C.R.P.No.1539 of 2019 by order dated 11.12.2024. Thereafter, defendant No.2 examined herself as D.W.1. However, no documents were marked. In fact, as seen from the docket proceedings referred to supra, after closure of the evidence on behalf of the defendants, the counsel for the plaintiffs advanced arguments. 16. No doubt, reopening of the suit or evidence and recalling a witness to produce documents is not a matter of right. The applicant who makes such an application must satisfy the Court that the documents could not be filed at the earliest point of time, despite due diligence and further assign proper reasons. 17. In M/s Bagai Construction (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that after change of various provisions by way of amendment in the CPC, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. The Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a schedule. If the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered. 18. No doubt, as pointed out supra, an opportunity was given to the D2 to D4 on one occasion, and D.W.1 was examined. However, the documents were neither filed nor exhibited. The D2 to D4, not versed with the legal nuances, cannot be penalised. The rules of procedure are handmaidens of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. 19. In Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Others Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Another2, the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the order passed by the High Court, wherein the High Court confirmed the order passed by the trial Court in an application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC and observed as follows:- “It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid 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.” 20. In Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. & Another Vs. P.Rajkumar rep. by his Power Agent Imam Oli3, the Apex Court while considering the scope of Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC, observed as follows:- “8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straightjacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant. 9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate 2 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 3 2020 (1) SCC 706 steps to trash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3)." 21. In this case at hand, as noted supra, the defendants initially failed to avail the opportunity despite the order dated 11.12.2024 passed in C.R.P.No.1539 of 2019, however, after change of the Advocate, the applications were filed along with documents. The trial Court exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and allowed the applications on payment of costs. The defendants paid the costs as directed by the trial Court. 22. When the trial Court exercised jurisdiction vested in it, whether this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Art 227 of the Constitution, interferes with such orders. The answer to the question is no longer res integra. 22. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, normally this Court will not act as an appellate Court by appreciating the evidence and substitute the opinion, unless the orders suffer from perversity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandi Infrastructures Vs. B Gurappa4, observed as follows: 31. The scope and ambit of the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been the subject matter of consideration before this Court in several judgments, and the law governing the exercise of such power now stands well settled. In exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court, nor can it sit in appeal over the correctness of the orders passed by courts and tribunals over which it exercises the power of superintendence under Article 227. 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. 4 2026 SCC Online SC 745 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. 36.4. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, travelled beyond the limits of the narrow and circumscribed scrutiny permissible under the said provision, in direct contravention of the principles set out in paragraph 35 of this judgment.” 23. In this case at hand, since the trial Court exercised jurisdiction vested in it and allowed the applications on payment of costs and the costs were paid by the defendants, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. 24. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Since the suit is of the year 2015, the trial Court shall expedite the disposal of the suit, keeping in view the Circular issued by this Court vide R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/ 2022, dated 23.11.2022 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 31.07.2026 JLV Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1629, 1685, 2122 & 2267 of 2025 Date: 31.07.2026 JLV