Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XIII Rule 1 CPC — Production of documents — Petition to direct plaintiff to produce original Will — Dismissal upheld — Suspicious circumstances surrounding alleged Will — No reference to Will in original written statements — Mention made only in additional written statements — Earlier litigation and advocate’s letter also did not refer to alleged Will — Court held plea regarding execution of Will appeared to be an afterthought introduced only to mark photocopy of Will — Trial Court justified in refusing relief. Held, defendant No.1 did not mention the alleged Will dated 25.12.1995 in her original written statement and the same was introduced only in additional written statement with an explanation that previous counsel omitted to mention it by mistake. Further, even in earlier partition litigation and correspondence of counsel there was no reference to such Will. Hence, the plea regarding existence of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and appeared to be an afterthought innovation intended to introduce a photocopy of the document. Therefore, dismissal of petition under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC was proper. (Paras 13 to 20)

advocatemmmohan

AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XIII Rule 1 CPC — Production of documents — Petition to direct plaintiff to produce original Will — Dismissal upheld — Suspicious circumstances surrounding alleged Will — No reference to Will in original written statements — Mention made only in additional written statements — Earlier litigation and advocate’s letter also did not refer to alleged Will — Court held plea regarding execution of Will appeared to be an afterthought introduced only to mark photocopy of Will — Trial Court justified in refusing relief.
Held, defendant No.1 did not mention the alleged Will dated 25.12.1995 in her original written statement and the same was introduced only in additional written statement with an explanation that previous counsel omitted to mention it by mistake. Further, even in earlier partition litigation and correspondence of counsel there was no reference to such Will. Hence, the plea regarding existence of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and appeared to be an afterthought innovation intended to introduce a photocopy of the document. Therefore, dismissal of petition under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC was proper. (Paras 13 to 20)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC — Recall of witness — Scope — Recall permissible only for clarification and not for filling lacunae — Recall sought regarding suspicious Will already disbelieved — Dismissal proper.
Held, power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is discretionary and exceptional, intended only for clarification of evidence and not to permit parties to fill omissions or lacunae. Since the petition under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC relating to alleged Will dated 25.12.1995 was already dismissed on account of suspicious circumstances, recalling P.W.1 to confront her with photocopy of the same Will and to elicit evidence regarding its alleged suppression would become redundant. Trial Court rightly dismissed petition seeking recall of P.W.1. (Paras 21 to 23)

---

Civil Procedure Code — Consolidation / clubbing of suits — Partition suits involving different properties and distinct issues — Joint trial impermissible where it causes confusion — Simultaneous trial directed instead of consolidation.
Held, though both suits were partition suits and parties relied upon rival Wills, the subject matter, schedule properties and issues involved were distinct and different. One suit related to alleged joint family properties, while the other concerned properties standing in the name of son. Consolidation of such suits would lead to unnecessary confusion. Hence, instead of clubbing the suits together, proper course would be simultaneous trial. Order directing clubbing of suits was therefore set aside. (Paras 24 to 28, 31)

---

Article 227 of Constitution of India — Scope of interference — Revisional jurisdiction — Interference declined where trial Court orders did not suffer from perversity or procedural illegality — Interference exercised where consolidation order found improper.
Held, orders dismissing applications under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC and Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC did not warrant interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India, as Trial Court had properly appreciated suspicious circumstances surrounding alleged Will and necessity for recall of witness. However, order clubbing two distinct partition suits was found erroneous and liable to be set aside. Consequently, CRP Nos.1455 and 1642 of 2025 were dismissed, while CRP No.1705 of 2025 was allowed. (Paras 20, 23, 28 to 31)