Malikireddy Vanamala, vs Thokala Sampath Reddy, on 25 September, 2025
In another revision against the very same parties i.e., Chaganti
Lakshma Reddy v. Chaganti Siva Rami Reddy 8, the erstwhile High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, on examination of facts therein i.e.,
8
. C.R.P No.1527 of 2018, decided on 27.04.2018
21
KL,J
CRP No.2860 of 2025
the suit was filed for partition and separation possession, plaintiff examined
himself as PW.1, his Power of Attorney Holder as PW.2, matter was posted
for defendant's evidence. The defendant filed an application under Order -
XVIII, Rule - 3A of CPC to permit him to examine other witnesses before
examining himself contending that he was hospitalized due to cardiac
arrest. The trial Court despite allowing the said application adopted an
impractical approach by directing the affidavits in chief-examination of all
witnesses to be filed together, the High Court found fault with the said
order and the approach of the trial Court. The said portion of the order was
set aside. The Court permitted the defendant to file affidavit of witness
whom he wishes to examine first, thereafter that witness is examined, the
defendant can file affidavit in chief of next witness and so on and so forth.