THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2106 of 2011 (Dated : 08-09-2011) Between: Ravilla Seenaih S/o Subbaramaiah Obulavaripalli Mandal, Cuddapah District. …Petitioner A n d Nagiripati Yanadaiah and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2106 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 7-3-2011 in I.A.No.245 of 2010 in O.S.No.384 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rly. Kodur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XIII Rule 10 of CPC to send for IB Namuna and No.3 Adangal for the years 2002 to 2005 from the office of the Tahasildar, Rly. Kodur. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.384 of 2005. He filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents- defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner- plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and marked five documents as Exs.A-1 to A-5. When the matter stood posted for his further evidence, he moved I.A.No.245 of 2010 under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC to send for the I.B.Namuna and No.3 Adangal for the years 2002 to 2005 from the office of the Tahasildar Rly.Kodur, Kadapa District in respect of the suit schedule property. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the revenue authorities issued passbooks after following the procedure laid down. The procedure followed has been indicated in the I.B.Namuna and therefore, it has become imminent to send for the aforesaid documents from the office of the Tahasildar. Paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit need to be noted and they read thus:- “4. It is submitted that the suit schedule property originally belongs to Bajaru Narayanamma and Chinnamma who are wives of Bajaru Nagaiah and they were in exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. My father Ravilla Subbaramaiah purchased the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.30,000/- on12-09-1990 under a registered sale deed. Since the date of purchase my father was in exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. After the death of my father I have been acquired possession of the properties left behind by my father including the suit schedule property. Since then I am in exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbooks, title deed in my favour. 5. The Respondents contended that the passbooks issued in my favour are fabricated, which carried no weight. I have also submitted the original pattadar passbooks. The Revenue authorities of Mandal Revenue Office of Obulavaripalle after following the due procedure laid down under law incorporated my name in 1-B Namuna and also No.3 Adangals. To prove the pattadar passbooks it is necessary that the 1-B Namuna and No.3 Adangals for the years 2002 to 2005 must be sent for from the office of the Thahasildar, Rly. Kodur. Otherwise I could not prove the pattadar passbooks. If the documents are not sent for I will suffer heavy loss”. 3. The respondents-defendants filed counter resisting the application. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner-plaintiff can as well obtain certified copies from the Revenue Department instead of requesting to send for originals. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 7-3-2011. Hence this revision. 5. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 01-07- 2011. Despite notice being served, the respondents did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner produced pattadar passbooks and title deeds and true copy of No.3 Adangal. Since the respondents are seriously disputing the genuineness of the documents placed on record, the petitioner moved the petition to summon the original documents, in which case, the respondents cannot have any objection. 8. As seen from the material placed on record, the petitioner marked pattadar passbooks and title deeds and true copy of No.3 Adangal as Exs.A-1 to A-5 respectively. Since the respondents disputed the genuineness of the said documents, the petitioner moved the petition to send for the originals. In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner made out valid ground for summoning the original records from the Thahasildar, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Rly. Kodur and that the trial Court is not justified in dismissing the petition to summon the documents. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, I.A.No.245 of 2010 shall stand allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.08-09-2011 *RAR