ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioner under article 227 of Constitution of India, against the orders dated 19.06.2020, allowing Interlocutory Application No.174/2020 in O.S.68/2012 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopeta, Guntur District filed under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to re-open the suit on behalf of the petitioner/4th defendant and permit the petitioner to recall the P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 for the purpose of cross-examination by the petitioner/D4.

2. Heard Sri G. V. S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned Counsel for respondents.

3. The suit is originally filed by the plaintiff viz., Munnangi Audinarayana Reddy, s/o. Peri Reddy against Munnagi Lakshmi w/o. Late Anji Reddy and Daggula Siva Reddy and Perugu Yedukondalu for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is absolute owner of A and B schedule properties and consequential relief of recovery of possession of those properties and other reliefs alleging that the plaintiff is the brother’s son of late Anji Reddy and that the plaintiff was brought up by the first defendant and her husband as fostered son and performed his marriage and further that Anji Reddy bequeathed the properties to the plaintiff under a will dated 18.1.2010 and later Anji Reddy died on

6.2.2010.

4. The Defendants 1 and 2 together filed written statement denying the fact of fostering by the first defendant and her husband and also the fact of execution of will by Anji Reddy. Subsequently on death of first defendant, Munnangi Peri Reddy who is the father of the plaintiff was added as 4th defendant as a legal representative of the first defendant.

5. The 4th defendant separately filed written statement stating that the plaintiff is his natural elder son and that the deceased Anji Reddy and the first defendant fostered the plaintiff and that Anji Reddy executed a will bequeathing all his properties to the plaintiff and also performed the marriage of the plaintiff. Thus, deviating from the defence taken by the first defendant, he filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff.

6. After commencement of the trial, the plaintiff examined his witnesses. Later, the 4th defendant filed this application to reopen the evidence of recall P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 for the purpose of cross-

examination by him.

7. The petition was opposed severely by the 2nd defendant by filing counter, stating that the plaintiff commenced his evidence on 1.5.2018 by filing affidavit and marked the documents, on 22.6.2018, 4.7.2018 and on 10.7.2018, the trial court, having found that there was no representation for the 4th defendant and that since he filed written statement supporting the claim of plaintiff, treated his cross- examination nil. It is further stated in the counter that later the plaintiff examined his witnesses, P.Ws. 2 to 5 and closed his evidence on 24.2.2020 and posted the case for the evidence of the 4th defendant to 3.3.2020 and again the case went on adjournments to 12.3.2020, on which day, the present application was filed. Thus, the 2nd defendant claims that the petitioner has been closely watching the proceedings and filed petition only to abuse the process of law and did not state any justifiable reason for not cross examining these witnesses. It is further contended that the plaintiff set up a forged and fabricated Ex.A1-will and examined an attestor as P.W.2, scribe as P.W.3 and chance witnesses as P.W.4 and P.W.5 who claimed to be present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and therefore the petitioner who is sailing with the plaintiff cannot be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses after the conclusion of their cross-examination by the contesting 2nd defendant.

8. However, the trial court allowed the petition by a very brief docket order stating that the petitioner sought the relief on the ground that he did not give instructions to his counsel to cross- examine P.Ws