THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5974 of 2009 Dated:11.02.2010 Between: Bandreddi Lakshmi Vara Prasad …Petitioner and Sri Bandreddi Seetharamayya, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5974 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.99 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi. He is the grandson of the first defendant. The suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17.07.1982 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. At the relevant time, he being minor, plaintiff was represented by his father Bandreddi Krishna Murthy. The suit is being opposed by the first defendant who allegedly sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.504 of 2009 purportedly under Order XVI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to summon the Tahsildar, T.Narsapuram, to produce the entire record pertaining to the plaint schedule property and present himself for cross examination as Court witness. The Court below dismissed the application, aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. This Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, the plaintiff filed all the certified copies of the revenue records which stood in the name of the first defendant pursuant to partition award dated 31.05.1978. He also filed other relevant revenue records showing the names of respondent Nos.2 to 4. When once the certified copies of the revenue records are produced, they are public documents under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and therefore, the Tahsildar who issued the documents as public authority need not be subjected to cross examination. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, is unassailable, and the Civil Revision Petition is misconceived. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 11.02.2010 vs