HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. M.P. Nos.1432 & 1443 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. No.650 OF 2007 DATE: 23-09-2011 BETWEEN: C.M.A. M.P. No.1432 OF 2011 Arundateeya Bandu Seva Mandali, Rep. by its President K.P. Narsing Rao, Flat No.116, I Floor, Panchavati Mall Complexc, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. - - - Petitioner/ Respondent No.1. AND P. Narayana and Eight (8) others. - - - Respondents/ Appellants/ Respondents. C.M.A. M.P. No.1443 OF 2011 B. Chandra Kumar. - - - Petitioner/ Respondent No.5. AND P. Narayana and Eight (8) others. - - - Respondents/ Respondents 1 to 4, 6 & 7. C.M.A. No.650 OF 2007 BETWEEN: P. Narayana and two others. - - - Appellants/ Petitioners. AND Arundateeya Bandu Seva Mandali, Rep. by its President K.P. Narsing Rao, Flat No.116, I Floor, Panchavati Mall Complexc, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. And six (6) others. - - - Respondents/ Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A. M.P. Nos.1432 &1443 OF 2011 AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.650 OF 2007 COMMON JUDGEMENT: These two Petitions are filed by the Petitioners/Respondents Nos.1 and 5 in C.M.A. No.650 of 2007 under Order 9 Rule 13 and Order 41 Rule 21 C.P.C. respectively seeking to set aside judgement dated 24-02-2011, passed in C.M.A. No.650 of 2007 and restore the same to its file. 2. The Petitioner in C.M.A. M.P. No.1432 of 2011 is the Respondent No.1 and the Petitioner in C.M.A. M.P. No.1443 of 2011 is the Respondent No.5 in C.M.A. No.650 of 2007 and both of them are the Petitioner Nos.1 and 5 in O.P. No.637 of 2005 respectively. 3. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in O.P. No.637 of 2005. 4. In fact, the Appeal was allowed 24-02-2011 in the absence of any representation made by the learned counsel for the Respondents and subsequently on 28-07-2011 the Respondent Nos.1 and 5 in C.M.A. No.650 of 2007 filed separate C.M.A. M.P. Nos.1432 and 1443 of 2011 respectively, seeking to set aside the judgement dated 24-02- 2011, passed in C.M.A. No.650 of 2007 and restore the same to its file and accordingly those two Petitions were allowed on 16-09-2011 restoring the C.M.A. to its file subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, with a direction to post the Appeal to this day. Accordingly, a memo is filed on their behalf to the effect that the order passed by this Court on 16- 09-2011 was complied with. 5. At para No.8 of the order in C.M.A. No.650 of 2007, dated 24-02-2011, it is observed as follows : “When the petitioners are questioning the amendments made and the respondents on record question that the petitioners ceased to be members of the society and they got no locus standi to question the amendments and the amendments are made properly, the respondents have to place necessary record to substantiate their claim. It seems that the lower Court placed the burden of proof of the same upon the petitioners’ which is not correct. Further, it is pertinent to note that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents in the matter. It is also pertinent to note here that no representation has been made before this Court in the matter on their behalf, which shows that they have no interest in the matter.” 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Respondents that when the Petitioners approached the Court for a particular relief they should place sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim taking necessary measures and by virtue of Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. a notice should have been given to the Respondents to cause production of the records in order to substantiate their claim even though they were in the possession of the records. Further, it is only an exparte order as without the representation of the Respondents, the order was passed. 7. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to uphold the claim of the Respondents? 8. By virtue of Order 17, Rule 2 C.P.C., it is only an exparte order because no representation was made on behalf of the Respondents. 9. It is pertinent to note here that the Respondents are supposed to be in the possession of the said records. Therefore, it is not proper on the part of the trial Court to dismiss the claim of the Petitioners on the ground that they failed to place necessary evidence. The Court got authority to take necessary measures to see that the records are produced before it giving necessary opportunity to both the parties as per law and by dismissing the matter with such observations it is likely to cause injustice to the Petitioners subject to the Petitioners having case. In view of the facts and circumstances of the Case, I deem it necessary to remand the matter to the trial Court with a direction to give an opportunity to both the parties to cause production of the records as per law and then to dispose of the matter on merits. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. However, the earlier order passed in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal would prevail subject to the observations made above. No order as to costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date:23-09-2011. DSH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 341 C.M.A. M.P. Nos.1432 of 2011 & 1443 of 2011 AND C.M.A. No.650 OF 2007 September, 23, 2011 DSH/DA.