##PAGE1##

1 HN, J 2026:APHC:16471

C.R.P.No.1385_2022 APHC010358382022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

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. T IYYAGURA SAMBIREDDY DIED, A

2. T IYYAGURA RANGA REDDY,, S/O SAMBIREDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O TELAPROLU VILLAGE, UNGUTURU

MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. B UTTULA 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 2026:APHC:16471

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

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 @ Avatharam, HN, J 2026:APHC:16471

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 2026:APHC:16471

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