THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.2467/2011 Date of Order: 1-7-2011 Between: Chitluri Mallikarjuna Rao ..Petitioner and 1. Chitluri Venkata Rajendra Prasad and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.2467/2011 Oral order: The petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision petition questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Mylavaram dt. 7-7- 20111 in IA No.252/2011 in OS No.1180/2010 dismissing IA filed under Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2/defendants to produce all the witnesses who are going to be examined on their behalf before the court. In the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition of plaint schedule property, D-1 to D-3 filed independent written statements taking different stands. In the suit, plaintiff’s evidence was closed. D-1 who is D.W.1 was partly cross examined. The plaintiff in stead of cross examining D.W.1, filed this present petition contending that his father never executed any will, as alleged by the defendants 1 to 3 and he died intestate and the alleged will was fabricated and created with a mala fide intention to grab the property. D-1 and D-2 took several pleas that C. V.Ranga Rao, father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, never let out the plaint schedule property to D-4; they looked after the welfare of their parents and he executed a will dt. 21-11-1996 in favour of D-1 and D-2 and life interest is created in favour of the mother of plaintiff and on the death of their mother, Lalitha Kumari, on 9-8-2003; they became the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and they effected partition under a registered partition deed dt. 22-7-2005, in which D-1 and D-2 got half share each and since then they are in possession of the property. Admittedly, it is for the defendants to establish execution of the will in the manner prescribed, but the plaintiff cannot force the defendants to produce all the witnesses who are going to be examined by them, particularly when they have filed separate written statements taking different pleas. In that view of the matter, the trial court rightly dismissed the petition holding that the plaintiff filed the petition to procrastinate the proceedings. The dismissal order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.1-7-2011 kmr