THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2665 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Order XVI Rule 1 Sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, amendment Act 2002 (for short, “C.P.C.”) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 14.06.2010, in I.A.No.1000 of 2010 in O.S.No.938 of 2008 on the file of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XVI Rule 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C., to pass orders by summoning the Commissioner, Income- Tax Department, Hyderabad, with original record pertaining to the PAN Card No.AQSPM4551A in the name of M. Ram Mohan Rao, was partly allowed. 2. Heard. 3. The suit is filed for payment of salary of the petitioner herein and when the evidence is commenced, the respondents filed the present petition. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition, there is no prima facie reason given by the respondents to show for what purpose the PAN Card of the petitioner herein is to be summoned from the concerned department. No doubt, at this stage, the admissibility and relevancy of the document cannot be decided, but, at the same time, the respondents must prima facie show that the document required to be summoned from a public authority is required to determine and resolve the issue involved in the suit. The dispute in the suit is with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner herein. According to the respondents, since the petitioner has crossed 65 years, the petitioner is not liable to hold the service and so, his services have been terminated and that to show the date of birth of the petitioner, the PAN Card of the petitioner can be used as evidence. It is not for the respondents to prove the case of the petitioner. Petitioner having come to the Court, the burden is on the petitioner to prove the case as per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In view of the fact that there is no reason whatsoever is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the question of summoning the Commissioner, Income-Tax Department, Hyderabad, with original record pertaining to the PAN Card No.AQSPM4551A in the name of M. Ram Mohan Rao does not arise. The trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the petition without deciding as to why this document is prima facie relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the suit. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 14.06.2010, in I.A.No.1000 of 2010 in O.S.No.938 of 2008 on the file of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Since the suit is of the year 2008, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit itself as expeditiously as possible subject to part-heard and other old cases. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 25, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2665 OF 2010 Between: Dr. M. Ram Mohan Rao .....PETITIONER AND Tirumala Engg. College and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2665 OF 2010 October 25, 2010