IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TEN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3346 of 2009 Between: Jagirapu Nehru Babu and others ….PETITIONER(S) and Govind Prasad Agarwal and others …RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3346 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 19.06.2009 passed in I.A.No.761 of 2009 in O.S.No.86 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order XVI Rule 7 and Section 151 CPC with a prayer to summon the Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram, directing him to produce the income tax returns along with Profit and Loss Account and Statement of Accounts submitted by the 1st defendant firm for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 and to give evidence, was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have not filed any document to show that in fact they have applied for the certified copies of the documents sought to be summoned and that their application was rejected by the Income Tax Officer. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that in fact xerox copies of the said documents have been filed, but the learned counsel appearing for the other side has opposed for marking the same and that the trial Court erred in taking a view that the petitioners have not filed any proof to show that they have applied for certified copies of the said documents under Right to Information Act to the Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram, and that though the petitioners have applied for certified copies of the same under the Right to Information Act and as the same were not supplied, they could not produce the same before the trial Court and so he prays to set aside the impugned order and to allow the petition filed by the petitioners directing to issue summons to concerned authorities to produce the documents. On the other hand, the learned counsel for 1st respondent contended that no reason is assigned for not applying the certified copies of the documents from the income tax department and, therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court. Xerox copies of documents obtained from the income tax department are stated to have been filed. Admittedly, xerox copies of documents cannot be received in evidence unless the loss or non-availability of the originals is shown. But, in this case, originals of xerox copies produced before the Court were readily available with the income tax department and the petitioners can as well obtain certified copies of the same and file before the Court for being marked in evidence. The only assertion made in the affidavit filed in support of the application is that they have applied for certified copies of the documents under Right to Information Act and the Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram, did not furnish the same. In fact, certified copies of documents will not be given under Right to Information Act, but only the information available with the department can be obtained under that Act. The petitioners have to necessarily apply for and obtain certified copies of the documents. When such application was rejected by the authority, they can file an application for summoning the concerned person of department for production of the documents. This procedure has not been followed. The trial Court rightly dismissed the application. There are no grounds to interfere with the order impugned. The revision petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 19th OCTOBER 2010 CVRK