HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3695 of 2010 Date: September 24, 2010 Between: Makala Krishna. … Petitioner/ Petitioner/ 21st defendant And 1. M/s. Nellimarla Jute Mills Co. Limited, rep. by General Manager, Nellimarla village, Vizianagaram District & 30 others. … Respondents/ Respondents/ Defendants 1 to 20 and 22 to 31 * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3695 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 08.7.2010 in I.A. No.3 of 2010 in O.S. No.2 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, where in the said application filed by the petitioner herein/21st defendant under Order XVI Rule 7 of C.P.C. seeking summons to the Tahsildar, Nellimarla to produce originals of the documents which were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-3 in O.S. No.161 of 2004, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the first respondent though served. Perused records. 3. The first respondent herein M/s. Nellimarla Jute Mills Co. Limited, filed the suit for eviction of the petitioner/D-21 and others from the plaint schedule land. The peltitioner/D-21 filed a written statement resisting eviction and inter alia contending that the first respondent/plaintiff has no title over the disputed land. It is not in dispute that previously the first respondent herein filed a suit O.S. No.161 of 2004 against the Government in respect of the same land and some other lands seeking declaration of title and other reliefs. It is also not disputed that in the said suit certain documents i.e., order passed by the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam in R.P. No.201/63 and in R.P.No.129/65 and order passed by the Board of Revenue were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-3 on behalf of the Government. It is also stated that the said documents Exs.B-1 to B-3 marked in O.S. No.161 of 2004 have been sent for to the file of present suit as well, but they could not be marked on account of objection that they were only attested true copies. The petitioner/D-21 therefore filed the present application seeking summons to be issued to the Tahsildar, Nellimarla to produce the originals of the said documents, as he is the custodian of the same. 4. There cannot be any tenable objection for issuing summons to the Tahsildar, Nellimarla to produce the originals of the above said documents before the Court. The question as to whether or not the documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the dispute between the parties in the present suit can be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage. When the petitioner/defendant No.21 has specifically denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit land and he is resisting the plaintiff’s claim for eviction, he is certainly entitled to show that the plaintiff has no title and therefore the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of eviction. It is open to the plaintiff to raise all permissible objections under law regarding relevancy and admissibility of the documents at an appropriate stage. There cannot however be any objection for the plaintiff for issuance of summons by the Court to the Tahsildar, Nellimarla to produce the originals of the above documents from the proper custody. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order is held unsustainable and is therefore set aside and the I.A. No.3 of 2010 in O.S. No.2 of 2003 stands allowed. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed as stated above. No order as to costs. ________________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J Date: September 24, 2010. BSB