IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1586 of 2011 Between: Chinna Ananthamma & 2 others .. Petitioners AND Kum. Kalavathi & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1586 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Though notices before admission were served on respondents 1 and 2, none entered appearance on their behalf. The third respondent, 4th defendant in the suit, is stated to be not a necessary party to the revision. 2. The civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, on 09.03.2011, in I.A.No.278 of 2010 in O.S.No.22 of 2003. 3. The suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 through their guardian for partition of the suit properties into three shares and allotment of one share each to the minor respondents 1 and 2 and for a permanent injunction against the first defendant from alienating the suit lands to defendants 2 to 4 or any others. The claim of respondents 1 and 2 in the suit is based on their being the children of Anasuyamma, daughter of Narayana and Govindamma, with Narayana being the original owner of the suit properties. Defendants 1 to 3, in their written statement, while admitting the original ownership of Narayana of the suit properties, claimed that Anasuyamma died issueless and that the first defendant was the second wife of Narayana after the death of his first wife Govindamma. Plaintiffs were stated to be the children of Venkatamma, the second wife of Prakasam, the husband of Anasuyamma, with the second marriage of Prakasam taking place due to the sickness of Anasuyamma. Thus, the question whether the plaintiffs are the children of Anasuyamma or Venkatamma is crucial in adjudicating any right of the minor plaintiffs to claim partition of the suit properties. 4. While so, the trial of the suit, after framing of the issues on the pleadings of the parties, proceeded with the examination of P.Ws.1 to 4 on behalf of the plaintiffs and D.Ws.1 to 4 on behalf of the defendants with marking of Exs.A-1 to A-6 and B-1 to B-6 through the witnesses. After the learned counsel for the defendants reported no further evidence, the plaintiffs, through Ananthamma, mother of Prakasam, filed I.A.No.278 of 2010 for permission to examine Venkatamma in view of the divergent pleas taken by the defendants which request was opposed by the defendants in their counter affidavit contending that the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C’) without any reference to Order XVIII Rule 17-A C.P.C is not maintainable and when the defendants pleaded in their written statement at the earliest opportunity that the plaintiffs are children of Venkatamma and led their evidence accordingly, there was neither any divergence in their pleas nor any justification for reopening the evidence and examining Venkatamma at the belated stage. 5. The trial Court, in the impugned order, found considerable force in the contentions of the defendants, but was of the view that as the suit was filed on behalf of the minor plaintiffs for partition and as their interests have to be safeguarded, the relief can be granted in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. 6. Permitting examination of Venkatamma as P.W.5 by reopening the suit led defendants 1 to 3 to challenge the said order in revision herein contending that allowing the petition after the evidence for both sides was closed is opposed to Order XVIII Rule 17-A of C.P.C and the petition is in violation of Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice. The examination of Venkatamma serves no purpose except dragging on the matter and, hence, they desired the revision to be dismissed. 7. The point for consideration is whether the exercise of the judicial discretion by the trial Court in reopening the suit and permitting examination of Venkatamma deserves interference herein. 8. It is true that Order XVIII Rule 17-A C.P.C originally provided for production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite diligence, but the said provision was repealed by Central Act 46 of 1999. Therefore, in the absence of a specific provision in the procedural statute for the purpose, it is only the inherent powers of the civil Court under Section 151 C.P.C that can be invoked for making any request of the sort made in I.A.No.278 of 2010 in O.S.No.22 of 2003. 9. It is true that I.A.No.278 of 2010 was requesting only for examination of P.W.5 on their behalf, while the affidavit in support of the petition also requested for reopening of the case to enable them to examine P.W.5. Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice directs that there shall be a separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. However, the rule itself provides for permissibility of an application for more than one relief where the reliefs are consequential. The purpose of the plaintiffs filing the application being mainly for permission to examine P.W.5, once such permission is granted, the reopening of the suit for further evidence should follow as a consequence and if so, Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice cannot be considered to have been straight away violated. Even if there is any technical non-compliance with Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice, technicalities need not stand in the way of the Court, doing what all is necessary to be done in the interests of justice to protect the genuine rights and interests of the parties, more so, when the plaintiffs are minors under a legal disability. 10. The pleadings of the parties, already referred to, show that the sustainability or otherwise of the very basis for the claim of the plaintiffs will depend on their being the children of Anasuyamma or Venkatamma and when the plaintiffs sought for examining Venkatamma, though at a very belated stage, the evidence of such a witness will be of crucial significance to the rival contentions of the parties. The invocation of the inherent powers of the Court under such circumstances by exercise of its judicial discretion need not be interfered with in the restricted revisional jurisdiction and though the delay caused inconvenience to the defendants, the same need not be necessarily fatal to the claim of the minor plaintiffs. 11. However, if the revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 desire to produce any further oral or documentary evidence in rebuttal of the evidence of Venkatamma to be examined as P.W.5, the trial Court shall give them every reasonable opportunity to produce such evidence. Subject to such direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1586 of 2011 Date: 20th October, 2011 KL