(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and decretal order dated 26.03.2026 in IA No. 2 of 2026 in OS No. 9 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet by allowing the CRP and thus render justice.
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and decretal order dated 26.03.2026 in IA No. 3 of 2026 in OS No. 9 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet by allowing the CRP and thus render justice.)
Common Order:
1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed, challenging the impugned common order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2026 in O.S. No. 9 of 2014.
2. In the aforesaid common order, the applications filed by the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, seeking to reopen the plaintiffs side evidence and to summon the witness have been dismissed.
3. The Trial Court has dismissed the applications on the ground that the same have been filed, belatedly, only at the time of arguments in the main suit and only to drag on the proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of title, based on a Will, the attesting witness to the Will, will have to be examined, to prove the Will and only under those circumstances, applications were filed to reopen and summon the witness.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, only during the time of cross-examination, respondents/defendants had raised an objection with regard to the genuineness of the Will by contending that the attesting witness of the said Will was not examined as a witness.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also drew the attention of this Court to a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 02.09.2022 in the case of Lakshmi Vs. Ponnusamy and Another rendered in C.R.P. Nos.1373 and 1378 of 2020 and would submit that, in similar circumstances, in the aforesaid decision, the plaintiff was granted an opportunity to reopen the evidence in order to enable the plaintiff to prove the Will by examining the attesting witness.
7. Admittedly, in the instant case, applications were filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, seeking to reopen and summon the witness only in the stage of arguments in the main suit.
8. The suit is of the year 2014. In the written statement filed by the respondents/defendants, they had disputed the existence of the Will, as claimed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit. When the petitioners/plaintiffs were aware that the respondents/defendants have disputed the Will, they ought to have summoned the attesting witness at the first instance, during the course of the examination of the plaintiffs side evidence. Having failed to do so, the question of entertaining the applications, seeking to reopen and summon the witness at the time of arguments in the main suit, does not arise.
9. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has no bearing to the facts of the instant case. In the said decision, it was not a case, where an application was filed to reopen the evidence after a lapse of more than thirteen years from the date of filing of the suit and it was not a case where it was filed during the arguments stage in the main suit.
10. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petitioners’ applications on the ground that they were filed belatedly and have been filed only to protract the proceedings.
11. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
