IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5150 OF 2009 Date:05.12.2009 Between:- M/s.Nellimarla Jute Mills Co.Limited, rep.by its Public Relations Officer, Mr.T.V.Satyanarayana Raju. ..Petitioner/Respondent No.1/Plaintiff And Makala Krishna and others .. Respondents/Respondents/defendants ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 07.09.2009 passed in I.A.No.1867 of 2009 in O.S.No.2 of 2003 on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram wherein the said application filed by respondent No.1 herein under Order XIII Rule 10(1) C.P.C. seeking to send for certain documents filed in the suit O.S.No.161 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram to the District Court, Vizianagaram, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appeared for respondent No.1, though served with notice. 3. Respondent No.1 herein is defendant No.21. The petitioner herein filed the suit against respondent No.1 and others for eviction and for delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, after removing the constructions, and also for injunction. Respondent No.1 has been contesting the suit. During the course of the trial, respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.1867 of 2009 seeking to summon the original documents filed in O.S.No.161 of 2004 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. The documents sought to be summoned are order dated 25.02.1965 passed by the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam in R.P.No.201 of 1963, order dated 31.05.1965 passed in R.P.No.129 of 1965 and order dated 29.03.1967 passed by the Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The said application was allowed by the learned District Judge on the ground that no prejudice would be caused if the said documents are summoned. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that respondent No.1 has earlier filed I.A.No.1924 of 2008 under Order VIII Rule I-A(3) C.P.C. for receiving the certified copies of the said documents and said application was dismissed by order dated 01.12.2008 and suppressing the said facts, the present application is filed. It is further contended that though a counter is filed by the petitioner herein in I.A.No.1867 of 2009 bringing the factum of dismissal of earlier application I.A.No.1924 of 2008, the same was not taken into consideration by the learned District Judge. 5. It is to be seen that the earlier application I.A.No.1924 of 2008 was filed for a different relief under Order VIII Rule I-A(3) C.P.C., seeking permission to file certified copies of the documents, which were filed in O.S.No.161 of 2004. The said application was, no doubt, dismissed by the learned District Judge on 01.12.2008. The same does not however disable respondent No.1 herein to seek other remedies available under law to get the original documents summoned from the file in O.S.No.161 of 2004 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram. In fact, in the earlier order dated 01.12.2008 passed in I.A.No.1924 of 2008, the learned District Judge observed that if the documents are not in their possession, they must state in whose possession, the documents are and necessary steps should be taken for production of those documents. In compliance with the said observation, the present application is filed for summoning the original documents filed in O.S.No.161 of 2004 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram. The question as to whether or not the documents proposed to be summoned are relevant and admissible does not arise, at this stage. It is always open to the petitioner herein to raise all permissible objections based on relevancy and admissibility at an appropriate time when the document summoned was sought to be accepted in evidence. For the present, there cannot be any tenable objection for the revision petitioner for summoning of the original documents filed in O.S.No.161 of 2004 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. The impugned order, allowing the said application, does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 6. In the result, the C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J 5th December, 2009 AMD