IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5427 OF 2007 Between:- Puvvala Naga Satya Kusuma Kumari …Petitioner A n d M/s Kalpana Agencies, Chennai, Rep. by its Partner Bhairurathnam Dujari. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5427 OF 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order dated 25-09-2007 in I.A.No.522 of 2007 in O.S.No.52 of 2001, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the defendant, was dismissed, with a further direction to submit a copy of the lease deed and sale deed by 01- 10-2005. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.52 of 2001 for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,75,975-56 Ps said to be due from the petitioner herein, the defendant, under settlement of accounts. The defendant filed a written statement contesting the suit and also making a counter claim against the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had sold away the landed property and thereby violated the terms and conditions under the lease agreement. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that she only sold the landed property but not the mining lease and the said mining lease is still subsisting. In order to establish the same, the petitioner- defendant sought to summon a witness i.e., Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore to cause production of the mining lease deed dated 23-03-1996 together with the related file. The respondent herein, the plaintiff, opposed the said application on the ground that whether the mining lease is subsisting or not is not relevant to the suit. 4. The question as to the relevancy or probative value of the evidence cannot be gone into at this stage and it is always open to the respondent/plaintiff to raise objections on that ground during the course of trial as and when the documents are sought to be exhibited. There cannot be any tenable objection for summoning the witness i.e., Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore or to cause production of the mining lease document together with the relevant file, especially in view of the contention of the petitioner/defendant that though the land was sold, the mining lease is still subsisting. 5. The impugned order dismissing the application is one line docket order and does not contain any reasons for dismissal of the application. Hence, the same is vitiated for non-application of the judicial mind and is, therefore, unsustainable. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the petitioner is permitted to cause summons to be issued to the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nellore to produce the documents mentioned in the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the lease deed and the sale deed, which are directed to be produced by them in the impugned order, are already on record. If that is so, there is no need for the petitioner to produce the said documents once again. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order of stay granted on 13-12-2007 stands vacated. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st July, 2010. Lrkm.