IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5292 of 2009 Between: Siradalla Simhachalam … Petitioner And Siradalla Ammaji & 10 others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Neelakanteswara Rao for Sri S.R. Sanku This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5292 of 2009 ORDER:- Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.50 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. She filed I.A.No.274 of 2009 to summon Mutta Sankar Rao, V.R.O. of Rajakoduru and Velchuru Villages along with land passbooks distribution list/books and payments list/books for passbooks distributed to the ryots of Rajakoduru and Velchuru Villages of Rambilli Mandal in respect of various survey numbers mentioned in the application. The said I.A. was dismissed by the Court below. Against the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner. The Court below, while dismissing the application, noted that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed an application for summoning the MRO and accordingly it allowed the said application and summoned the MRO, who was examined as DW.2 and produced as many as 11 documents, which were marked as Exs.X-1 to X-11. The Court below in its order observed that DW.2 testified in his evidence that he produced the available documents and the rest of the documents, if any, were not available, as they were sent to the District Collector. The Court below further observed that the very same documents, which were filed by DW.2, are now sought to be summoned in a different form. The Court below also observed that the petitioner filed the I.A. in a casual manner without even first approaching the revenue authorities for supply of certified copies of the documents. Having carefully considered the reasons given by the Court below and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petitions, CRPMP.No.7241 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.11.2009 ES