HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4152, 5623 and 5624 of 2009 Date : 21.12.2009 Between : K. Manikyala Rao & others. …..Petitioners And Koppula Venkateshwarlu & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 4152, 5623 and 5624 of 2009 COMMON ORDER : These three Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the orders, dated 6th of August 2009, passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.Nos.512, 513 and 531 of 2009 in O.S.No.302 of 2003. 2. I.A.No.512 of 2009 was filed, seeking to call for the documents, which are in the custody of Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Eturnagaram, for proving the case of the petitioners in the said I.A. The application in I.A.No.531 of 2009 was filed to summon the Tahsildar, Eturnagaram, whereas I.A.No.513 of 2009 was filed to issue summons to the said Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer. The Court below has passed a reasoned order, allowing I.A.No.512 of 2009, and following the said order, I.A.Nos.513 and 531 of 2009 are also allowed. 3. The petitioners herein are plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.302 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, which was filed against the respondents/defendants for declaration of title and injunction. The respondents herein are contesting the suit by filing written statement. The petitioners have adduced evidence on their side, and thereafter, evidence was also adduced on behalf of respondents, and evidence was closed. When the suit was coming up for arguments, the respondents/defendants have filed the aforesaid I.As., seeking the reliefs as referred above. 4. On behalf of plaintiffs, Ex.A-1 was filed, which is a patta passbook. Pleading that it is not a genuine document, the respondents have obtained a copy of the proceedings in Form-17(A), prepared under the Record of Rights Act, 1971, and the said document is marked as Ex.B-27. After closure of evidence, these applications are filed with a supporting affidavit, stating that already the certified copies of documents were filed, and as the originals are in the custody of Tahsildar, Eturnagaram, production of those original documents is necessary to prove the case of respondents. The Court below, by recording a finding that the suit lands were not shown in Form-17(A), Certified copy of which was marked as Ex.B- 27, allowed the applications, directing the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Eturnagaram, to produce the original application submitted by D-1 for issuance of certified copy of Form-17(A), the original of Ex.B-27 i.e. Form-17(A) book of extract of Patta No.248, and the relevant documents and information about the plaint schedule properties regarding ownership and possession. 5. In these revisions, it is argued by Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for petitioners, that the impugned orders are passed without recording any valid reasons. It is submitted by the learned counsel that it is not open for the trial Court to summon the documents without naming them, by issuing directions for production of relevant documents regarding ownership and possession. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri A. Ravinder, learned counsel appearing for respondents that as much as it is evident from Form-17(A) filed under B-27 that no passbook was issued, as such, it was necessary to call for the original records from the Mandal Revenue Officer. 7. I have perused the copy of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application in I.A.No.512 of 2009. The orders in I.A.Nos.513 and 531 of 2009 are passed in terms of the reasons recorded in the order in I.A.No.512 of 2009. In I.A.No.512 of 2009 also, the petitioners did not name any documents, production of which, is necessary for disposal of the case. It was merely stated that they have filed the certified copy of the document in Form-17(A), but no application was filed either for production of original application filed by D-1 on 25.05.2004 or the original of Form-17(A), which is marked as Ex.B-27, prepared under the Record of Rights Act, 1971. In that view of the matter, there was no reason or justification in directing the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer to produce such records. Further, in view of provision under Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice, unless the document is named and relevancy of such document is mentioned, no public officer can be called upon to produce the documents, merely by directing to produce the relevant documents and information about the plaint schedule properties. Such direction is issued by the Court below, contrary to Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Even otherwise, in the absence of disputing either filing of the application or the genuineness of certified copy under Ex.B-27, there are absolutely no reasons for filing these applications either to summon the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer or for production of documents as referred in the orders under challenge. For the aforesaid reasons, it is clear that the Court below has allowed the applications by exceeding the jurisdiction vested in it. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to set aside the orders impugned in these revisions. 8. Accordingly, the order, dated 6th August 2009, passed in I.A.No.512 of 2009 is hereby set aside, and consequently, the said I.A. stands dismissed without any order as to costs. 9. In view of the reasons referred above, the orders, dated 6th of August 2009, passed in I.A.Nos.531 and 513 of 2009 are also set aside, and consequently, the said I.As. stand dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. All the revisions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st December 2009 ajr