ORDER : The orders impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the common orders dated 20.01.2023 passed in I.A.Nos. 8 & 9 of 2022 in O.S.No.32 of 2009 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi and hence both these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by these common orders. 2. The petitioner in both these revision petitions is the 2nd defendant, the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos. 2 to 31 are the defendants 1, 3 to 31 in O.S.No.32 of 2009 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for partition. The petitioner/2nd defendant filed both the interlocutory applications one is to reopen the evidence of the 2nd defendant and the other is to issue summons to Y. Eswara Prasad Reddy, who is one of the attestors of the alleged will dated 10.11.2008, to give evidence on his behalf with regard to the alleged will deed dated 10.11.2008 propounded by the 5th defendant, contending that the 5th defendant has created the Will and codicil with a view to evade the legitimate share allottable to the petitioner as well as other coparceners. Non-examination of the witness now proposed is neither willful nor intentional and examination of the witness is very much essential, else much and irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to the petitioner and moreover no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the respondents. 3. The 5th respondent/5th defendant resisted the claim by filing counter, contending that, the petitions are vexatious and existence of the will was mentioned in the written statements of the defendant Nos.1 & 7 in the year 2009 itself and though the plaint was amended several times, the petitioner/2nd defendant did not file any additional written statement nor did the plaintiff file rejoinder. The petitioner has adduced entire evidence on his behalf and the 5th defendant has also adduced his evidence in proof of the wills and codicils as required by law and when the matter is coming for arguments, after lapse of long time, these petitions were filed. There are no valid grounds mentioned in the petitions and hence prayed to dismiss both the petitions. 4. The Court below, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record and after considering the decisions relied on by both the parties, dismissed both the applications. 5. There are no valid grounds mentioned in the petitions and hence prayed to dismiss both the petitions. 4. The Court below, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record and after considering the decisions relied on by both the parties, dismissed both the applications. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred both these Civil Revision Petitions, contending that the Court below erred in appreciating the fact that in a suit filed for partition, the 5th defendant is claiming the entire property as if they were bequeathed to him under the Wills said to have been executed by his father and sister to the exclusion of other legal heirs and the Court below ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner is disputing the Will and Codicil stating that they were created by the 5th defendant only to evade the legitimate share of the petitioner and other coparceners. The Court below failed to make a note that examination of one of the attestors of the Will would not cause any prejudice to the other parties and simply because there is some delay, the parties to the suit cannot be denied the opportunity of examining the best witnesses available to them. Further, the Court below erred in concluding that it is unfair to examine another attestor of the will. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions by setting aside the orders impugned. 6. Heard Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri VSR Avadhani, learned counsel for the 5th respondent/5th defendant in both the Civil Revision Petitions. 7. Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration would submit that the evidence of the petitioner/2nd defendant was closed on 02.11.2022 and immediately after noting that one more essential witness has to be examined on his behalf to disprove the Will propounded by the 5th defendant, he filed the present applications on 09.12.2022, when the suit stood posted for arguments. Non examination of the witness at the earlier point of time is neither willful nor intentional and moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. However, the Court below on erroneous reasoning that examination of other attestor of the Will is unfair, dismissed the petitions, ignoring the fact that one coparcenor is trying to claim the entire property by propounding a Will. However, the Court below on erroneous reasoning that examination of other attestor of the Will is unfair, dismissed the petitions, ignoring the fact that one coparcenor is trying to claim the entire property by propounding a Will. The orders impugned are not sustainable and prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 8. On the other hand, Sri V.S.R.Avadhani, learned counsel for the 5th respondent/5th defendant would submit that, the petition is bereft of valid grounds as to why he could not examine the witness earlier and in the absence of the any valid and justifiable grounds, the petitions filed by the petitioner at the time of arguments are to be dismissed and rightly did so by the Court below. The orders impugned in these revision petitions do not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, prayed to dismiss both the Civil Revision Petitions. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on Lakshmi Priya Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd., and others vs. Ramalingam Mills Ltd., and another, 2016(2) ALT 537 and Smt. Gollu Satyavathi and others vs. Kilaparthi Apparao and others, 2018(1) ALT 503 . 9. Perusal of the record discloses that the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition of as many as 38 items of plaint schedule properties, both movable and immovable. The 5th respondent/5th defendant filed written statement contending that the properties were bequeathed in his favour by his father and sister under Wills and Codicils. The petitioner/2nd defendant filed written statement disputing the genuineness of the will and Codicil propounded by the 5th respondent/5th defendant. The record further discloses that the evidence on both sides was closed and the matter stood posted for arguments. At that stage, both these petitions came to be filed by the petitioner to reopen and issue summons to one of the attestors of the will propounded by the 5th respondent. 10. In M/s. Lakshmi Priya Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd., and others, relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court held as follows: “20…… Even sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII of CPC provides for production of documents with the leave of the Court at the hearing of the suit. 10. In M/s. Lakshmi Priya Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd., and others, relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court held as follows: “20…… Even sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII of CPC provides for production of documents with the leave of the Court at the hearing of the suit. But, when the evidence of the parties was completed and the suit is coming up for arguments, though technically speaking, the hearing of the suit can be called as not completed, it is not the intendment of the sub-rule to grant leave to a party to file the documents before commencement of arguments. Further, the affidavits file in support of the applications do not indicate any justifiable reason for accepting the said documents and recalling the witnesses after conclusion of trial. The amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure were made in order to speed up the process of disposal of cases and if this type of applications are allowed, it would go against the spirit of the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 11. In Smt.Gollu Satyavathi and others relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court held thus: “2. Under Order XVIII Rule-2 on the day fixed for hearing of the suit or on any other date to which the hearing is adjourned, the party having the right to begin, shall state its case and produce any evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. 3. It is implied from this provision that at the commencement of trial, the party has to be ready with his witnesses, so that their examination will go on till it is completed unhindered. It has now become a practice that the plaintiff or the defendant comes out with requests, much after closing their side’s evidence, by pleading some reason or the other, for re-opening the evidence. Though fair amount of discretion is vested in the Courts to consider such requests, unless strong reasons are pleaded and the Court is satisfied with such reasons, it is not desirable to reopen the evidence, merely on the parties making such requests. Though fair amount of discretion is vested in the Courts to consider such requests, unless strong reasons are pleaded and the Court is satisfied with such reasons, it is not desirable to reopen the evidence, merely on the parties making such requests. It is needless to observe that the suits which are kept pending for years, would get further delayed if the Courts accept requests for reopening of evidence, for the mere asking, without the party making out a strong case for such reopening.” 12. The observations made in the above decisions are to the effect that allowing petitions filed for reopening the evidence would go against the spirit of the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure and unless strong reasons are pleaded and the Court is satisfied with such reasons, it is not desirable to reopen the evidence, merely on the parties making such requests. 13. There is no dispute with regard to the law laid down in the supra mentioned citation. But the said principle cannot be applied in the present case. But, in the present case the petitioner has made out grounds for consideration in the application while seeking the relief. 14. In the instant case, these petitions were no doubt filed when the suit stood posted for arguments. The reason offered for non examination of the witness earlier is that, after going through the evidence on record, it was noticed that one of the attestors of the will, who was examined as D.W.6, is acquainted with the family of the 5th respondent/5th defendant, deposed against the interest of the petitioner and thus he intends to examine the other attestor of the alleged will. 15. In the instant case, in the time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, according to the petitioner, since one of the attestors of the alleged Will, who is interested on the 5th respondent/5th defendant, deposed against the interest of the petitioner, he was advised to examine the proposed witness to disprove the Will propounded by the 5th respondent/5th defendant. 16. In K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2020) 10 SCC 706 , their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “11. There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross-examination. 16. In K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2020) 10 SCC 706 , their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “11. There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross-examination. Section 151 of the Code provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In the absence of any provision providing for reopening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for purposes other than securing clarification required by the court, the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to reopen the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination. This inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the court to put such question to elicit any clarifications. 14. The amended provisions of the Code contemplate and expect a trial court to hear the arguments immediately after the completion of evidence and then proceed to judgment. Therefore, it was unnecessary to have an express provision for reopening the evidence to examine a fresh witness or for recalling any witness for further examination. But if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a party comes across some evidence which he could not lay his hands on earlier, or some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes into existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice, subject to such terms as the court may deem fit to impose.” 17. In Sugandhi (dead) by L.Rs. and another, 2021 (2) ALD (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: 2. “9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. In Sugandhi (dead) by L.Rs. and another, 2021 (2) ALD (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: 2. “9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute……...” 18. Taking into consideration, the observations made in the decision referred to supra, keeping in view the nature of the suit and the relationship between the parties and the nature of the evidence the petitioner sought to let in and as no prejudice would be caused to the other side, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court should have given an opportunity to the petitioner, instead of dismissing the applications. 19. It is no doubt evident from the record that the petitioner did not choose to let in evidence at appropriate stage and though he filed the petition within a month from the date of closure of evidence, the same would cause certain amount of inconvenience to the other party. Though the same cannot be a ground to curtail the right of the party to effectively defend his cause by producing the evidence he chooses, however such an inconvenience has to be compensated by awarding costs. 20. In view of the above, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed by setting aside the common orders dated 20.01.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2022 in O.S.No.32 of 2009, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the 5th respondent/5th defendant within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequent to payment of costs, I.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2022 shall stand allowed and the Court below shall issue summons to the proposed witness fixing a date for recording his evidence, on which date both the parties shall get ready to complete the evidence, without seeking any further adjournments. Consequent to payment of costs, I.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2022 shall stand allowed and the Court below shall issue summons to the proposed witness fixing a date for recording his evidence, on which date both the parties shall get ready to complete the evidence, without seeking any further adjournments. There shall be no order as to costs As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.