THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2822 of 2011 Date:11th November, 2011 Between: K.Krishna Murthy S/o.late K.Shankeraiah ..... Petitioner AND M/s.Dayal Corporation, Shyam Sunder Loya S/o.Sawal Ram Loya, Partner. .....Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2822 of 2011 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 22.06.2011, passed in I.A.No.762 of 2011 in O.S.No.463 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to summon the relevant documents of Rohit Extraction TIN No.28710174027 for the years 2004 to 2006. 2. The learned Additional Chief Judge having considered the contentions of the parties proceeded to dismiss the application with the following observation: “The prayer in the petition is to summon the Commercial Tax Officer to produce all relevant documents of Rohit Extraction TIN No.28710174027 for the years 2004 to 2006. What are the relevant documents is not explained. Whether they are public documents and whether they are available with the proposed witness who is a public officer, is not referred in the affidavit specifically. The efforts made by the petitioner to obtain certified copies of those documents is not explained. Petitioner is not a party to those documents. Rohit Extraction appears to be the party to the documents referred and a specific case or foundation as to necessity and relevancy of those documents is not placed. The description of the documents sought to be summoned is not given. The prayer to summon all relevant documents is vague. The documents are of the years 2004 to 2006, which are of more than 5 years old. The suit is of the year 2006 and is identified one. Why the petitioner has not taken early steps for summoning those documents is not explained.” 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the witness sought to be summoned is necessary to substantiate the case of the petitioner/defendant. A further submission has been made that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the material brought on record and thereby erred in dismissing the application. 5. I have gone through the prayer sought by the petitioner in I.A.No.762 of 2011. The petitioner has neither furnished the nature of documents, which are required to be summoned, nor stated the relevancy of the documents to his plea in the suit. In the absence of the above referred particulars, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:11th November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2822 of 2011 Date:11th November, 2011