1. Heard Mr. Dida Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Ravikiran, learned counsel for respondent No.1. As per cause title, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not necessary parties.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article - 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 23.07.2026 in I.A. No.607 of 2026 in O.S. No.1375 of 2015 passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Order - XVIII, Rule - 17 read with Section -151 of CPC, to reopen the evidence and recall DW.1 for re-examination was dismissed.

3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.4 in the aforesaid suit, O.S. No.1375 of 2015, while respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendant Nos.1 to 3.

4. Respondent No.1 herein has filed the aforesaid suit against respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the petitioner herein seeking declaration and consequential relief of perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioner was examined as DW.1 in the presence of Advocate Commissioner. During his crossexamination, he was confronted with Ex.A20 - Will, dated 10.02.1982 and put some suggestions to him on the said Will. He has given answers to those suggestions. But, the answer given by him was recorded as if he had admitted the genuineness, validity and legal effect of Ex.A20 and that Mr. M.E. Ebenezer became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property under the Will. In fact, the petitioner as DW.1 never intended to make any such admission regarding title of Mr. M.E. Ebenezer or the legal effect of Ex.A20. In order to clarify the said ambiguity and discrepancy, his evidence is required to be reopened and he should be recalled for the purpose of his re-examination to clear the said ambiguity in respect of Ex.A20 - Will. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an application vide I.A.No.607 of 2026 in O.S.No.1375 of 2015 under Order - XVIII, Rule - 17 read with Section - 151 of CPC, to .

5. Respondent No.1 herein - plaintiff filed counter denying the aforesaid relief.

6. Vide order dated 23.07.2026, learned trial Court dismissed the said I.A. No.607 of 2026 observing that there is no ambiguity found in recording the cross-examination of DW.1 with regard to the Will dated 10.02.1982 marked as Ex.A20 and that the grounds shown by him are found not tenable. Learned trial Court further observed that re-examination of witness should be concluded immediately after conclusion of recording of cross-examination of the said witness.

7. Challenging the said order, defendant No.1 filed the present revision contending as follows:

               (i) Re-examination is a statutory right conferred upon a party to explain matters referred to in cross-examination and to clarify material ambiguities.

               (ii) Trial Court erred in holding that there was no ambiguity in cross-examination of DW.1 regarding Ex.A-20 - Will.

               (iii) The trial Court also committed a procedural error in holding that re-examination must be concluded instantaneously on the spot before the Advocate Commissioner.

8. Whereas, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would contend that the trial Court was right in dismissing the aforesaid I.A. and that there is no error in the impugned order and, therefore, he sought to dismiss the revision. The petitioner, who was examined as DW.1, is very much acquainted with the reading and writing of English language as admitted by him. When there is no ambiguity, the question of re-examination at later stage cannot be permitted.

9. In the light of the aforesaid rival submissions, the main contention of the petitioner herein is that to clarify the ambiguity relating to the evidence of DW.1 with regard to Ex.A20 - Will, he sought to reopen the evidence and recall DW.1 to the extent of said limited purpose on the said aspect, whereas, respondent No.1 opposed the same.

10. Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioner herein filed a suit vide O.S. No.271 of 2018 (Old O.S. No.1408 of 2015) seeking declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of the suit schedule property. Respondent No.1 herein filed the present suit i.e., O.S. No.1375 of 2015 against the petitioner herein and others, seeking declaration and consequential relief of injunction in respect of the very same suit schedule property. Both the suits were consolidated and conducted a common trial. In the said suits, learned trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner for recording crossexamination of the petitioner (DW.1), defendant No.4 in the present suit. He was cross-examined by the plaintiff’s counsel on 22.06.2026 and the same was recorded by learned Advocate Commissioner. On the next day, the petitioner herein - defendant No.4 filed a memo before the trial Court stating as under:

               “…..Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner recorded the cross-examination of DW.1. However, the Advocate Commissioner has not properly recorded the answers given by DW.1. In some places, the witness (DW.1) denied the suggestions made by the counsel for the Plaintiff, but the Advocate Commissioner recorded as if the witness had admitted the said suggestions. At one place, the Advocate Commissioner recorded that DW.1 admitted that M.E. Ebenezer became absolute owner of the suit schedule property as per the will. In fact, in the entire defence of D.W.1, as stated in the Written Statement, DW1 denied the execution of the will. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to read the sentence as: “It is not true to suggest that as per the will M.E. Ebenezer became the absolute owner of the property.”

Thereafter, the petitioner filed the aforesaid I.A. No.607 of 2026 in O.S. No.1375 of 2015 under Order - XVIII, Rule - 17 read with Section - 151 of CPC, to reopen the evidence and recall DW.1 for the limited purpose of re-examination in order to clarify the ambiguity relating to the evidence recorded concerning Ex.A20 (Will dated 10.02.1982).

11. Relevant portion of cross-examination of DW.1 by the plaintiff’s counsel recorded by learned Advocate Commissioner on 22.06.2026 is as under:

               “…I have perused the original will deed under Ex.A20 doc.No.9/1982 dt: 10/2/1982. I know the contents of the said will. It is true as per the said will M.E. Enenezer became absolute owner of the suit property…..”

Referring to the aforesaid answer given by DW.1 pursuant to the suggestion made by learned counsel for the plaintiff, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the very defence put forth by the petitioner in his written statement is denial of Will and denial of ownership claimed by M.E. Ebenezer under the said alleged Will. Therefore, the aforesaid answer given by DW.1 during crossexamination must be negative rather than positive, but learned Advocate Commissioner recorded in the above manner in the absence of counsel representing the petitioner. Therefore, to clarify the aforesaid ambiguity, re-examination of DW.1 is required.

12. It is no doubt true that the petitioner denied the execution of Ex.A20 in the written statement. However, a party cannot invoke Order - XVIII, Rule - 17 of the CPC to fill up gaps or omissions. It is only for clarification and its main purpose is to enable the Court to clarify any doubts that may have arisen during the course of his examination.

13. In the present case, DW.1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the plaintiff on 22.06.2026. The petitioner herein had filed a memo dated 23.06.2026 alleging that the Advocate Commissioner has not recorded the answers given by DW.1. Therefore, he prayed the trial Court to the sentence as “It is not true to suggest that as per the Will M.E. Ebenezer became the absolute owner of the property”, whereas, in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.607 of 2026, it was alleged that while recording the evidence certain answers given by DW.1 were not correctly recorded, resulting in material ambiguity regarding the testimony of DW.1. Thus, the petitioner made contradictory versions in the memo dated 23.06.2026 and in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.607 of 2026. Prejudice is not a ground to the Court in exercise of power under Order - XVIII, Rule - 17 of the CPC.

14. It is apt to note that during cross-examination, DW.1 categorically admitted that he knows reading and writing of English.

15. In the case on hand, learned trial Court observed that there is no ambiguity found in recording the cross-examination of DW1 with regard to the Will dated 10.02.1982 marked as Ex.A20. The grounds shown by the petitioner to recall DW.1 for re-examination are found not tenable. Further, re-examination of witness shall be concluded immediately after the conclusion of recording of crossexamination of the said witness, and if the petition is allowed, there will be every opportunity for the witness (DW.1) to overcome his cross-examination. Observing so, the trial Court passed the impugned order and there is no error in it warranting interference by this Court. Thus, the revision fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

16. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision, shall stand closed.