Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V.Maheswari And Others vs Katta Sujatha on 14 October, 2025
APHC010696562022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Tuesday, the fourteenth day of October,, two thousand and twenty five
Present
The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi
I.A.No.1 of 2024
in
C. R. P No.2734 of 2022
Between:
V.Maheswari and others
thers ...
...Petitioners
and
S. Bhaskarachari and others ...Respondents
Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners
etitioners : Sri M. Venkata Ramana Reddy
Counsel for the respondents
espondents : Sri G. Seena Kumar
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in
C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022
ORDER:
This application has been filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C. with a prayer to review the order, dated 12.03.2024, passed in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022.
2. The facts which lead to filing of the review petition are breifly as follows:
a. The petitioners filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:
a) declaring that the registered partition deed, dated 28.02.2002, is null and void and to set aside the same as it is a collusive and fraudulent document brought into existence without the knowledge of S.Vasudevachari, i.e., the husband of the 1st plaintiff;
b) directing the divison of the plaint 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' schedule properties into 4 equal shares by taking into account good and bad qualities and to allot 1/4th share to the plaintiffs and to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs
c) directing the 1st defendnat to render the accounts for the income from the plaint schedule properties;
d) direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit;
e) grant such other or further reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
b. The following issues have been framed for trial:-
1. Whether all the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendants?3
BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022
2. Whether the plaint B schedule properties are the self acquired properties of one Shanmugachari, who is ancestor of plaintiffs and defendants?
3. Whether Shanmugachari executed a Will dated 19.10.1996 by bequeathing item No.1 of plaint B schedule properties to 2nd defendant? If so,
4. Whether Shanmugachari is competent to bequeath item No.1 of plaint schedule properties to 2nd defendant and the same is binding on plaintiffs?
5. Whether the Registered Partition deed entered among Shanmugachari, his sons and daughters on 28.02.2002 is true and valid document? If so, whether it is binding on plaintiffs? If not
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration that the partition deed, dated 28.02.2022 is null and void as prayed for?
7. Whether the other properties other than items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties were partitioned among the family members as mentioned in the partition deed, dated 28.02.2002?
8. Whether C schedule properties are the properties of 5th defendant ? If not whether they were purchased by 1st defendant with the joint family money?
9. Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to execute by seeking half portion of item No.1 of plaint B schedule prperty to 6th defendant?
10. Whether the plaint schedule properties are liable for partition? If so, what is the share of plaintiffs?
11. To what relief?
4BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022 c. During the course of trial, the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1. The witness was cross-examined on 18.10.2022, 20.10.2022 and 02.11.2022. Later, on 22.11.2022, the plaintiffs filed the petition in I.A.No.165 of 2022 under Order XVIII, rule 3 C.P.C. to permit them to close their evidence for the present and adduce rebuttal evidence after closure of the evidence of the defendants with regard to issues Nos. 5 to 7 and other issues.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that the suit is filed seeking the relief of partition deed, dated 28.02.2002, as null and void and also for partition of the plaint schedule property and allot 1/4th share in them to the plaintiffs, whereas the main plea of the defendants is that there was already division of the plaint schedule properties and therefore, the plaintiffs contended that the burden of proof of partition pleaded by the defendants is on them and consequently, the plaintiffs reserve their right to adduce rebuttal evidence on those issues.
4. The petition was opposed by respondent No.5 by filing counter mainly stating that the petitioners ought to have produced all their evidence; that they have no right to reserve the right to adduce rebuttal evidence; that the petitioners ought to have reserved such a right before adducing evidence; that the evidence of PW1 in chief examination and cross-examination clearly established that all such evidence on those issues was adduced and therefore, option cannot be exercised, having exercised option at the time of leading evidence and that the plaintiffs have burden to prove that the properties are joint family properties and also that the petition was filed at the belated stage to protract the proceedings.
5. The petition was dismissed by the trial Court on 06.12.2022.
5BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022
6. Against the order, the revision petition in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022 was preferred before this Court.
7. After hearing both parties, this Court dismissed the revision petition as follows, after considering the issues, provision of law under Order XVIII, Rule 3 C.P.C. and the nature of of the suit reliefs:
"10. A perusal of the issues shows that the initial burden of establishing all these issues lies on the plaintiffs alone. It is not a case of a normal partition suit wherein, if the plaintiffs claim that the plaint schedule property is joint family property and the defendants take a plea that the property was already partitioned, the burden may lie on the party pleading earlier partition. Whereas, in the present case, the plaintiffs already admitted that there is a registered partition deed, dated 28.02.2022 (sic.2002), and seek declaration of the same as null and void. Therefore, they cannot throw the burden of proving any of the issues on the defendants. Order XVIII Rule 3 applies where the burden lies on one party with regard to some issues and the other party with regard to other issues, which is not the case on hand. As such, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this revision."
8. Now, this petition was filed to review the above said order mainly on the following grounds:-
(a) This Court did not consider the plea under Order XVIII, Rule 3 C.P.C. and the decision cited on behalf of the 6 BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022 revision petitioner and therefore, non-consideration of the legal provision is a good ground for review;
(b) The Court ought to have considered the scope under Order XVIII, Rule 3 C.P.C. and permitted the petitioner / plaintiff to close the evidence;
9. Heard both sides.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the party beginning evidence has right to reserve rebuttal evidence, but, without properly complying Order XVIII, Rule 3 C.P.C., this Court dismissed the revision petition. According to him, the burden of proof in relation to issues Nos.5 to 7 is heavily on the defendants and therefore, the impugned order is to be reviewed by this Court. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following decisions:
(1) In M/s. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Katta Sujatha Reddy and others1, it was held in paragraph No.19 as follows:-
"19. This Court has laid down the following principles on the exercise of review jurisdiction: a. Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC;
b. Error on the face of record must be an error which must strike one on a mere perusal and must not on a long drawn process;
c. The power of review must not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits;1
2024 INSC 861 7 BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022 d. The phrase "any other sufficient reason" means a reason that is analogous to the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; and e. The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review."
(2) In Board of Control for Cricket, India and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others2, it was held in paragraphs Nos.88, 89 & 90 as follows:
"88. We are, furthermore, of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a review application cannot be said to be ex facie bad in law. Section 114 of the Code empowers a Court to review its order if the conditions precedents laid down therein are satisfied. The substantive provision of law does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the Court except those which are expressly provided in Section 114 of the Code in terms whereof it is empowered to make such order as it thinks fit.
89. Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason.2
2005 AIR SCW 230 8 BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022
90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient reason' in O.47, R.1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an Advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit".
(3) In Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon Vs. Union of India and others3, the decision of the Supreme Court in Sow Chandra Kanta Vs. Sheik Habib [(1975) 3 SCR 933] was referred, wherein it was held as follows:
"A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial falliblity... The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality."
(4) In Gulam Abbas and others Vs. Mulla Abdul Kadar (dead) through his executors and others4, it was held by the Supreme Court 3 AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 2041 4 (1970) 3 SCC 643 9 BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022 that failure to consider a circular having the force of law is an error which can be a ground to review a decision.
(5) In Rajender Kumar and others Vs. Rambhai and others5, it was held in paragraph No.6 as follows:
"6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment / order cannot be disturbed."
(6) In Prem Sagar Gupta (deceased) through L.Rs. Vs. Kamlesh Kumari & Another6, it was held in paragraph No.2 as follows:-
"2. ... Rejection of a right of a person to produce evidence in rebuttal on account of delayed application is negation of the right itself. To deny this right on its belated exercise is not only infraction of a legal right but also amounts to defeating the interests of justice."
(7) In Nalajala Narasayya Vs. Nalajala Sitayya and others7, it was held in paragraphs Nos.8 and 11 as follows:
5AIR 2003 SC 2095 # (2007) 15 SCC 513 6 AIR 2004 Del 136 7 AIR 1992 Andhra Pradesh 97 10 BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022 "8. All these decisions were considered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jaswant Kaur Vs. Devinder Singh, AIR 1983 Punj and Har 210 by S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J and S.P. Goyal, J. The learned Judges observed that on the language of O.XVIII, R.3, CPC, on principle, and on the weight of precedent, the last stage for exercising the option to reserve the right of rebuttal can well be before the other party begins its evidence. The learned Judges followed the abovesaid decisions and dissented from the decision of the Saurashtra High Court. They also dissented from the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxmi Narain Vs. Baburam, AIR 199 Madh Pra 191, wherein a view similar to the view of the Saurashtra High Court was taken. We are in entire agreement with the view expressed by Kondaiah, J. in Nookalamma's case (AIR 1969 Andh Pra 82) (supra) and with the similar views expressed by the Mysore, Rajasthan, Delhi and the Punjab and Haryana High Courts and we respectfully dissent from the views expressed by the Saurashtra, Vindhya Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh High Court. We are of the view that on the language of Order XVIII, Rule 3, CPC, on principle, and on the weight of precedent, the last stage for exercising the option to reserve the right of rebuttal can well be before the other party begins his evidence.
11. From the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the reservation of the right of adducing rebuttal evidence need not be express and need not always be by way of a 11 BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022 memo filed on behalf of the party who has begun the evidence on his side. Of course, if the reservation is express, the matter would present no difficulty. But such a reservation could also be implied in a case where the counsel for such a party makes a statement that he is closing the evidence of his party in the affirmative only. In such a case, it must be held that the party had implicitly reserved the right to adduce rebuttal evidence. ..."
(8) The view taken in T.China Panduranga Rao and another Vs. B.Venkatappaiah and others8, was approved by the Division Bench in Nalajala Narasayya (supra).
(9) In Bode Prasad and another Vs. Karlapudi Venkateswara Rao and others9, in paragraph No.5, it was held as follows:
"5. A serious dispute is raised, as to the stage at which, the application was filed. Rule 3 of Order 18 C.P.C., confers the right to a party, to adduce rebuttal evidence. Such evidence can be adduced, only when permitted by the Court. The provision is silent as to the stage at which, the application has to be filed. This much however can be said that, it should be filed before other side commences its evidence. In Dr. Syed Afzal Vs. Syed Hamia (died) per L.Rs [2002 (5) ALT 175], this Court held that, an application can be filed even at the fag end 8 1986 (1) A.L.T 490 9 2009 (6) ALT 145 12 BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022 of the recording of evidence of the party, which intends to adduce rebuttal evidence."
(10) In Inapu Nookalamma Vs. Illapu Simhachalam10, it was held that the option to adduce rebuttal evidence is to be exercised after the evidence of the plaintiff is closed and before the defendant begins to lead evidence but not afterwards.
(11) In Laxmi Narayan Vs. Baburam 11 , it was held in paragraph No.11 as follows:
"11. The rules of procedure are the handmaid of the administration of justice and, therefore, in the interest of justice in the light of the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff despite the fact that he did not intimate about his election at the stage of beginning of his evidence be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal, but at least it should be ascertained whether he, in fact, reserved that evidence and did not lead his evidence on the issues in question."
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents / defendants submitted that the scope of review is different from the scope of appeal, whereas the petitioners seek the relief similar to the appeal and that no ground to review is made out by the petitioners. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in 10 AIR 1969 AP 82 11 1976 SCC OnLine MP 32 13 BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022 S.Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan & others12. It was held in the said decision at paragraphs Nos.5.1 to 5.3 as follows:
"5.1 While considering the aforesaid issue, two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to. In the case of Perry Kansagra Vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra [(2019) 20 SCC 753], this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a reharing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:
"(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.12
Civil Appeal Nos.1167-1170 of 2023, dated 24.02.2023 14 BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact fo record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere lookikng at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit."
5.2 It is further observed in the said decision that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record."
5.3 In Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam SEB [(2020) 2 SCC 677] it is observed and held that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addresed and decided. It is further observed that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on 15 BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022 the face of record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC."
He further submitted that since the suit in the present case is not a mere suit for partition, but it is a suit seeking the relief of declaration that the partition deed, dated 28.02.2002, is null and void and for consequential relief of partition, and therefore, it is the burden of the plaintiffs to establish that the partition deed is null and void and that it is not for the defendants to establish that the partition deed is valid. According to him, the existence of the registered partition deed is taken in the pleadings in the written statement only by way of reply to the pleadings in the plaint.
13. In this regard, he further contended that it is settled principle of law that in a suit for the relief of declaration, the burden is on the plaintiffs but not on the defendants and placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others 13 . He further contended that Order XVIII, Rule 3 C.P.C. has no application to the present case and thereby, no illegality is committed in the impugned order in review. He further contended that PW1 completed her evidence in chief examination and cross-examination and lead evidence on all the issues and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot now seek that they reserve right to lead rebuttal evidence. He further submitted that such a right would arise only before the evidence is placed and not thereafter.
14. Keeping the propositions of law on the scope of jurisdiction for review, this Court proceeds to examine the order sought to be reviewed.
132014(2) SCC 269 16 BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022
15. The reliefs claimed in the suit begin with the relief of declaration that the partition deed, dated 28.02.2002, is null and void. Unless the said relief is decided in favour of the plaintiffs, the subsequent relief of partition does not arise and that is how the plaintiffs sought the relief in the same seriatim. Therefore, unlike in a suit for mere partition where there is burden on the defendant pleading prior partition, the burden does not lie on the defendants here to prove that the partition deed is valid until and unless the plaintiffs discharge their initial burden to prove that the partition deed is invalid and is liable to be declared as null and void. On discharge of the initial burden by the plaintiffs, the onus shifts to the defendants to prove the validity of the partition deed. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove even in relation to the issue framed regarding the validity of the partition deed. The issues shall be framed in such a manner that the burden is placed on the party who has to establish the fact in issue. But, in the present case, the drafting of the issues Nos. 5 and 7 are otherwise worded. However, the principles of burden of proof do not change. The role of the parties in framing of issues is limited to the extent of hearing and it is the Court which frames the issues. Therefore, the burden cannot be changed against the principles of law. The right to reserve the right to lead rebuttal evidence arises only if some of the issues place burden on the other party. Under all these circumstances, the plaintiff cannot rely on Order XVIII, Rule 3 C.P.C. to contend that the burden of proving some of the issues is on the defendants in the present case. Therefore, this Court held that the petitioners / plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief claimed. So, there is no error apparent on the face of the record by mis-application of law or fact, in any manner. Consequently, there is no merit in the review petition.
17BSB, J Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022
16. In the result, the petition in Review I.A.No.1 of 2024 is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 14-10-2025 RAR