THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4220 OF 2009 DATED: 29-01-2011 Between: Vasupalli Yerramma. .... PETITIONER And Vasupalli Yellayya & 5 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 29-07-2009, in E.A.No.444 of 2009 in E.A.No.56 of 2005 in E.P.No.115 of 2004 in O.S.No.2588 of 1997 on the file of the learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said petition filed by the petitioner herein for issuance of summons to the Director, A.P.State Housing Corporation, Hyderabad, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner is the third party claimant and she filed E.A.No.56 of 2005 and pending the same, petitioner filed E.A.No.444 of 2009, seeking to issue summons to the Director, A.P.State Housing Corporation, Hyderabad, to produce the list of beneficiaries. Respondent filed counter opposing the said application. The Execution Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any material to show that the list of beneficiaries is available with the Corporation and further that the petition is filed to further protract the matter. 4. According to the petitioner, the original beneficiaries’ list is a material document to substantiate her claim and she came to know that the said list is available and is in the custody of the Director of A.P.State Housing Corporation, which is prior to filing the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioner filed a suit O.S.No.1399 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for permanent injunction and in the said suit, the authorities of the Corporation were examined as P.Ws.6 and 8 and their possession was not believed by the Court. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the beneficiaries’ list for 1979-80 was not produced in the suit O.S.No.1399 of 2004 in spite of filing application for issuance of summons and the oral evidence of P.W.6, was marked even late and therefore issuance of summons for production of the said document in the present proceedings is all the more required. In the circumstances and to ensure fair opportunity to both parties to place all the necessary material before the Court for proper and just adjudication of the dispute, it is considered that summons be issued for production of the document, namely beneficiaries’ list of Muvvanivanipalem, Visakhapatnam, for the year, 1979-80 from the custody of the Director of A.P.Housing Corporation, Hyderabad. Petitioner shall not, however, make any attempt to drag on the proceedings under the guise of production of documents. Having regard to the fact that the claim application was filed in the year, 2005, the Execution Court is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order, dismissing E.A.No.444 of 2009, is set aside. 7. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th January, 2011. Tsy