ORDER :

The orders impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the common orders dated 20.01.2023 passed in I.A.Nos. 8 & 9 of 2022 in O.S.No.32 of 2009 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi and hence both these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by these common orders.

2. The petitioner in both these revision petitions is the 2nd defendant, the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos. 2 to 31 are the defendants 1, 3 to 31 in O.S.No.32 of 2009 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for partition. The petitioner/2nd defendant filed both the interlocutory applications one is to reopen the evidence of the 2nd defendant and the other is to issue summons to Y. Eswara Prasad Reddy, who is one of the attestors of the alleged will dated 10.11.2008, to give evidence on his behalf with regard to the alleged will deed dated 10.11.2008 propounded by the 5th defendant, contending that the 5th defendant has created the Will and codicil with a view to evade the legitimate share allottable to the petitioner as well as other coparceners. Non-examination of the witness now proposed is neither willful nor intentional and examination of the witness is very much essential, else much and irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to the petitioner and moreover no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the respondents.

3. The 5th respondent/5th defendant resisted the claim by filing counter, contending that, the petitions are vexatious and existence of the will was mentioned in the written statements of the defendant Nos.1 & 7 in the year 2009 itself and though the plaint was amended several times, the petitioner/2nd defendant did not file any additional written statement nor did the plaintiff file rejoinder. The petitioner has adduced entire evidence on his behalf and the 5th defendant has also adduced his evidence in proof of the wills and codicils as required by law and when the matter is coming for arguments, after lapse of long time, these petitions were filed. There are no valid grounds mentioned in the petitions and hence prayed to dismiss both the petitions.

4. The Court below, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record and after considering the decisions relied on by both the parties, dismissed both the applications.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred both these Civil Revision Petitions, contending that the Court below erred in appreciating the fact that in a suit filed for partition, the 5th defendant is claiming the entire property as if they were bequeathed to him under the Wills said to have been executed by his father and sister to the exclusion of other legal heirs and the Court below ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner is disputing the Will and Codicil stating that they were created by the 5th defendant only to evade the legitimate share of the petitioner and other coparceners. The Court below failed to make a note that examination of one of the attestors of the Will would not cause any prejudice to the other parties and simply because there is some delay, the parties to the suit cannot be denied the opportunity of examining the best witnesses available to them. Further, the Court below erred in concluding that it is unfair to examine another attestor of the will. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions by setting aside the orders impugned.

6. Heard Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri VSR Avadhani, learned counsel for the 5th respondent/5th defendant in both the Civil Revision Petitions.

7. Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration would submit that the evidence of the petitioner/2nd defendant was closed on 02.11.2022 and immediately after noting that one more essential witness has to be examined on his behalf to disprove the Will propounded by the 5th defendant, he filed the present applications on 09.12.2022, when the suit stood posted f