THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 3534 of 2011. ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constituion is directed against the order dt. 6.7.2011 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka rejecting I.A.No. 181 of 2011 in O.S.No. 212 of 2006. O.S.No. 212 of 2006 was filed by the revision petitioners for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. I.A.No. 181 of 2011 was filed under Order 16 Rules, 1,6 and 7 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. for issuance of summons to the Joint Sub- Registrar, District Registrar Office, Visakhapatnam to produce registration extract of the sale deed dt. 12.8.1930; which was already marked as Ex:A.19 at the instance of the petitioners. It appears that survey number of properties reflected in Ex:A.19 are different from the survey numbers reflected in the same document in an earlier suit O.S.No. 202 of 68 filed by the respondent/defendant to which the plaintiffs/revision petitioners are admittedly not parties. The earlier suit being for declaration of title (and the judgment therein not being a judgment in rem under the provisions of the Evidence Act), the court below rejected the application recording the following reasons: The perusal of the record shows the petitioner has filed Ex:A.19 document as it is contended by the respondent no document dated 1930 was filed along with the written statement and the same was not confronted to the plaintiff witness during the cross-examination. As it is pointed by the Counsel for the respondent, the respondent has not relied upon the said document either in the I.A. or in CMA filed against the orders in the I.A. As on today no document is filed by the respondent which shows that survey number as 26/1 as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner also not filed the Judgement copy in O.S.No. 202 of 08 or plaint copy to show that this respondent had manipulated the sale deed dated 12.8.1930 and obtained orders fraudulently in that suit. If the petitioner wants to prove that the claim of the respondent that he is the purchaser of the suit schedule property basing on the said sale deed is not correct, as the survey number mentioned in the said sale deed is different from the suit schedule survey number there will be a force in the contention of the petitioner. Even at the stage of the plaintiff evidence before examination of the defendant, the plaintiff can disprove the case in spite of waiting to produce rebuttal evidence. But the present petition filed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner only wants to prove the manipulation made by the respondent in the said document and nothing else. When the said document is not before the court how the petitioner will prove the manipulation is not stated by the petitioner. When there is no document filed either by the petitioner or the respondent showing that the said document was manipulated by the respondent, by calling the said document not purpose will be served. As the prayer of the petitioner is restricted only to prove the manipulation and the said document is not filed before this court, the present petition is not maintainable at this stage. As such there are no merits in this petition.” This Court discerns no error in the exercise of discretion or in the application of law, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 16.09.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 3534 of 2011. ORDER: Dt. 16.9.2011.