IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATED: THIS the 8th day of April, 201 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 2216 and 2593 of 2010 Between: Immadisetty Srinivasa Rao ..Petitioner and Moturu Kamala Rani and others Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 2216 and 2593 of 2010 Common order: These two revisions are directed against the orders dated: 19-04-2010 passed in I.A.Nos. 368 and 370 of 2010 in O.S.No. 197 of 2001 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, a suit filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property basing on the Will dated:08-08-1975 2. The petitioner herein is the fourth defendant in the suit. He filed I.A.No. 370 of 2010 to permit him to adduce further evidence and I.A.No. 368 of 2010 to receive certain documents and also to recall him for giving further evidence after receiving the documents. As against the dismissal of those two interlocutory applications the present revisions are filed. 3. It is not in dispute the counsel who cross examined DW-1 on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.4 on 23-09-2008 also reported that there is no cross examination for defendant No.5. Further the petitioner earlier filed I.A.No. 1384 of 2008 which was allowed on condition that he should adduce evidence within there adjournments and subsequently he was examined on 30-01-2009 and his evidence was closed. After closure of evidence on behalf of the petitioner, defendant No.13 was examined and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage again I.A.No.370 of 2010 is filed to recall the petitioner (4th defendant) to adduce further evidence stating that the petitioner, Defendant Nos. 1,2, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 ony are contesting the proceedings and the remaining Defendants – Defendant Nos. 3, 5,6, 7, 10 and 11 were set ex prate. It is further stated by the petitioner that he could not adduce further evidence in time and some documents are to be marked on his behalf to prove his contentions to defeat the suit of the plaintiff and that there is no intention or negligence on his part. Further, when the petitioner himself has admitted the Will dated: 8-8-1975, which is now sought to be marked, it is not necessary to again recall him, since it is for the plaintiff to prove the same, which has been executed by the mother of the plaintiff in a sound and disposing state of mind and thereafter a codicil has also been executed bequeathing the property pertaining to the plaintiff’s mother and Defendant No.12. 4. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the court below would show that the counsel of the petitioner/Defendant No.4 is having Vakalat and cross-examined the DW-1 at length. In view of the aforesaid stated facts, the dismissal order passed by the court below does not suffer any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this court. 5. Accordingly both the revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. Dated:08—04—2011. *BVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 2216 and 2593 of 2010 Dated:08—04—2011.