HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4652 of 2010 Date: July 27, 2011 Between: 1. L. Siddaramulu Goud & 4 others … Petitioners/ Plaintiffs/ Respondents And Kandiri Kistamma … Respondent/ Defendant/ Petitioner * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4652 of 2010 O R D E R: By order dated 14.9.2010 passed in I.A. No.439 of 2010 in O.S. No.80 of 2007, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak, allowed the defendant’s application filed under Rule 129 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980, and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yeldurthy, to produce the original unregistered sale deed dated 19.4.1969 and the connected documents upon payment of costs of Rs.200/- to the plaintiffs in the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs are in revision before this Court. 2. Interim stay of further proceedings in the suit was ordered on 07.10.2010 for a limited period which was extended, the last such extension being on 08.12.2010 by a period of six weeks. There was no extension of the interim order after the said date. It is however stated that the trial Court did not proceed with the suit even thereafter. 3. The parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defendant had earlier filed I.A. No.287 of 2010 in the said suit under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to mark photocopies of the sale deed dated 19.4.1969 and the connected documents. However, the plaintiffs raised an objection as to the marking of the said documents as secondary evidence on the ground that the defendant had failed to explain as to why the originals could not be produced. Thereupon, the defendant filed the subject application in I.A. No.439 of 2010 in the suit seeking a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yeldurthy, to produce the said documents, claiming that the originals were in his possession. The trial Court allowed the said application and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yeldurthy, to produce the documents as sought for by the defendant. Pertinent to note, the trial Court protected the interest of the plaintiffs by granting them the liberty to raise objections, if any, when the documents were marked and by imposing costs. 5. In the light of the aforestated facts, it is clear that no error was committed by the trial Court warranting exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. As the plaintiffs themselves objected to the marking of the photocopies of the documents in question, they can have no grievance when the defendant seeks to produce the originals thereof. The order passed by the trial Court does not brook interference on any ground and is accordingly sustained. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. C.R.P.M.P. No.6203 of 2010 shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: July 27, 2011. BSB